"Ok, Boomer"

[crimson5pheonix]

I brought it up because it was exactly what was talked about.

It literally was not.

It is though, perfect example of a snowflake.

I brought up the bbq part first because it even directly tied to the hypothetical point being made.

You picked an arbitrary example of an unpopular hate figure and nasty mean vegan whose story just happened to have barbecues in it, and I'm assuming you didn't think that much further than that. Because if you had actually thought the example you gave was the same thing as what I was talking about, then that would be a kind of overt ableism that I don't think even you could tolerate in yourself.

But we weren't talking about reasonable people, that was Silentpony's point, that this can be taken to an utterly unreasonable degree. Even if she has real problems with this list of things her neighbors were doing, they can't reasonably be asked to stop. And more to the point she doesn't actually care if they did stop because at least one of them did stop and she tried to sue them anyway.

Also pointing out that's another thing you cut out of my post, so good job. Still arguing in bad faith.

Now if you want to say a woman mad about neighbors pet birds might be a reasonable person, fair enough, and that's clearly where this conversation is going to go.

That might be a reasonable response, yes.

No, because it looks like she was trying to work the system more than anything.

 

[generals3]

Sure. You need something solid. Give me something solid that Donald Trump's racism is hurting American minorities through policy.

This is an attempt to shift the topic. You made a claim about the outcomes of his policy. That's what's under discussion. The claim requires evidence.

No, that's not what's under discussion. What's under discussion is whether supporting Trump makes you racist.

Does that really matter though? Supporting Kim Jong Un doesn't make you a murderous maniac but you're still supporting one and that's bad enough. I'll agree you can support Trump without being a racist, but you're still supporting someone who has displayed racist attitudes and is pushing a (borderline) racist agenda. Now you may feel it's a price you're willing to pay for the "Best stock market ever", but a lot of people feel supporting one element doesn't mean the rest gets to be ignored or minimised.

 

[tstorm823]

Now, as far as I can tell, there is only one reading of this which make any structural sense. That would be that you are putting forward these positive indicators as "fruits" and "outcomes" of Trump's administration or his actions.

If that's the only reading you can possibly take then you aren't paying attention.

I was asked in the middle of this what it would take to declare Trump a racist and was explaining that whether or not you declare him a racist isn't the point. If you're not showing me specific actions disadvantaging people because of their race, I don't need to care what the man thinks. A virtue is not a state of being, a virtue is an action. People can say "Trump is a racist" til their teeth fall out, it's not going to carry any weight until there's racist actions that matter. Obsidian seems to have tried to make a case, but I'm not going to go through the exercise of tearing through 14 pieces of paper thin propaganda for someone who has taken it upon themselves to passive aggressively comment about me without ever actually engaging, particularly when they still use a claim they made a whole thread about and was so embarrassingly weak the thread died as soon as I posted in it.

Does that really matter though? Supporting Kim Jong Un doesn't make you a murderous maniac but you're still supporting one and that's bad enough. I'll agree you can support Trump without being a racist, but you're still supporting someone who has displayed racist attitudes and is pushing a (borderline) racist agenda. Now you may feel it's a price you're willing to pay for the "Best stock market ever", but a lot of people feel supporting one element doesn't mean the rest gets to be ignored or minimised.

See, Kim Jong Un has murdered people though. If Donald Trump was physically spitting on minorities, sure, you could call someone racist for supporting that. Donald Trump isn't doing that. He's condemning racism. He's bragging about how good his time in office has been for minorities economically. You can call that a facade and say he's lying and he's actually super racist, but Trump supporters are, unquestionably, supporting a man who is claiming to be good for people of all races.

To put it simply, no Trump fans think Trump is a racist. How can you call someone racist for supporting someone they think is a non-racist? If a politician was a murderous maniac but people don't know it, you can't really hold people morally culpable for supporting a murderer. And when people try to convince others that Trump is a racist, they justify their claims with lies like "he said Nazis are fine people." How could I blame people for supporting him?

There's an unholy alliance between the left and white supremacists. Both those groups have agreed to pretend that Republicans are racist. It benefits the left as a smear campaign, and it benefits the neo-nazis who get publicity that morally shouldn't be given to them. But it isn't true. Don't believe these people.

 

[Saelune]

Now, as far as I can tell, there is only one reading of this which make any structural sense. That would be that you are putting forward these positive indicators as "fruits" and "outcomes" of Trump's administration or his actions.

If that's the only reading you can possibly take then you aren't paying attention.

I was asked in the middle of this what it would take to declare Trump a racist and was explaining that whether or not you declare him a racist isn't the point. If you're not showing me specific actions disadvantaging people because of their race, I don't need to care what the man thinks. A virtue is not a state of being, a virtue is an action. People can say "Trump is a racist" til their teeth fall out, it's not going to carry any weight until there's racist actions that matter. Obsidian seems to have tried to make a case, but I'm not going to go through the exercise of tearing through 14 pieces of paper thin propaganda for someone who has taken it upon themselves to passive aggressively comment about me without ever actually engaging, particularly when they still use a claim they made a whole thread about and was so embarrassingly weak the thread died as soon as I posted in it.

Does that really matter though? Supporting Kim Jong Un doesn't make you a murderous maniac but you're still supporting one and that's bad enough. I'll agree you can support Trump without being a racist, but you're still supporting someone who has displayed racist attitudes and is pushing a (borderline) racist agenda. Now you may feel it's a price you're willing to pay for the "Best stock market ever", but a lot of people feel supporting one element doesn't mean the rest gets to be ignored or minimised.

See, Kim Jong Un has murdered people though. If Donald Trump was physically spitting on minorities, sure, you could call someone racist for supporting that. Donald Trump isn't doing that. He's condemning racism. He's bragging about how good his time in office has been for minorities economically. You can call that a facade and say he's lying and he's actually super racist, but Trump supporters are, unquestionably, supporting a man who is claiming to be good for people of all races.

To put it simply, no Trump fans think Trump is a racist. How can you call someone racist for supporting someone they think is a non-racist? If a politician was a murderous maniac but people don't know it, you can't really hold people morally culpable for supporting a murderer. And when people try to convince others that Trump is a racist, they justify their claims with lies like "he said Nazis are fine people." How could I blame people for supporting him?

There's an unholy alliance between the left and white supremacists. Both those groups have agreed to pretend that Republicans are racist. It benefits the left as a smear campaign, and it benefits the neo-nazis who get publicity that morally shouldn't be given to them. But it isn't true. Don't believe these people.

This video never stops being relevant.

And you still did not answer me on if you still support Trump and will vote for him next election. I do not see why that is a question you refuse to answer.

 

[tstorm823]

And you still did not answer me on if you still support Trump and will vote for him next election. I do not see why that is a question you refuse to answer.

It's a dumb question. Do I support the president? Sure. It's good for the country for the people to support the president. Do I support Trump's actions? Some of them yes, some of them no. Do I have loyalty to Trump? Of course not. Will I vote for him? Signs point to yes, but I can't know when we don't yet know who he's running against. There are a few Democratic candidates I find somewhat compelling. Not the ones currently at the top, mind you, but anyone can win. But Trump's ego accidentally coincides with good decisions a lot more often than Sanders ideology, so I can certainly tell you who I vote for there.

 

[Silvanus]

If that's the only reading you can possibly take then you aren't paying attention.

I was asked in the middle of this what it would take to declare Trump a racist and was explaining that whether or not you declare him a racist isn't the point. If you're not showing me specific actions disadvantaging people because of their race, I don't need to care what the man thinks. A virtue is not a state of being, a virtue is an action. People can say "Trump is a racist" til their teeth fall out, it's not going to carry any weight until there's racist actions that matter.

No, you explicitly went further than merely requesting that others show you specific actions resulting in negative outcomes. You said the fruits were good. Did you mean by that that the outcomes of his approach were good, or not?

 

[tstorm823]

No, you explicitly went further than merely requesting that others show you specific actions resulting in negative outcomes. You said the fruits were good. Did you mean by that that the outcomes of his approach were good, or not?

I presented the hypothetical, "why should I care if the fruits are good". Asking a hypothitical is very, veryveryvery, very far from making an explicit statement.

 

[tstorm823]

edit: no idea why it posted that twice like that.

 

[Marik2]

 

[Silvanus]

I presented the hypothetical, "why should I care if the fruits are good". Asking a hypothitical is very, veryveryvery, very far from making an explicit statement.

...Which rests on the assumption that the "fruits are good" in the first place. By "fruits" did you not mean the outcomes of his policy/ approach?

I really have no idea why we have to go through this mental gymboree to get to some actual substance.

 

[tstorm823]

...Which rests on the assumption that the "fruits are good" in the first place. By "fruits" did you not mean the outcomes of his policy/ approach?

I really have no idea why we have to go through this mental gymboree to get to some actual substance.

Because you have no actual point you're defending and have nothing to assert but the idea that I said something I didn't. I'm not sure what stake you have in this argument other than to say that I'm wrong.

 

[Saelune]

And you still did not answer me on if you still support Trump and will vote for him next election. I do not see why that is a question you refuse to answer.

It's a dumb question. Do I support the president? Sure. It's good for the country for the people to support the president. Do I support Trump's actions? Some of them yes, some of them no. Do I have loyalty to Trump? Of course not. Will I vote for him? Signs point to yes, but I can't know when we don't yet know who he's running against. There are a few Democratic candidates I find somewhat compelling. Not the ones currently at the top, mind you, but anyone can win. But Trump's ego accidentally coincides with good decisions a lot more often than Sanders ideology, so I can certainly tell you who I vote for there.

It is not a dumb question. I want it to be made crystal clear that you, tstorm823 are willing to support and endorse Trump's actions. You are. I realize you are trying to still be dodgy about it though, but no one is fooled. You are a Trump supporter, and that means that you are ok enough with the things Trump does to continue to support him.

 

[Kwak]

Some more 'fruits' for those ethically-challenged who insist on supporting psychopaths...

Chief Gallagher was accused of multiple offenses during his final deployment to Iraq and during the Battle for Mosul. The most prominent accusation and the best-attested to was the murder of a prisoner of war, a war crime.[5] A captured young fighter of the Islamic State (also known as ISIL, ISIS, and Daesh) was being treated by a medic. According to two SEAL witnesses, Gallagher said over the radio "he's mine" and walked up to the medic and prisoner, and without saying a word killed the prisoner by stabbing him repeatedly with his hunting knife. Gallagher and his commanding officer, Lieutenant Jake Portier, then posed for photos of them standing over the body with some other nearby SEALs. Gallagher then text messaged a fellow SEAL a picture of the dead captive with the explanation "Good story behind this, got him with my hunting knife.?[5]

Another accusation was that Gallagher's sniper work during his 2017 deployment became indiscriminate, reckless, and bloodthirsty. He allegedly fired his rifle far more frequently than other snipers;[2] according to testimony, the other snipers in the platoon did not consider him a good sniper, and he took "random shots" into buildings.[1] Other snipers said they witnessed Gallagher taking at least two militarily pointless shots, shooting and killing an unarmed old man in a white robe as well as a young girl walking with other girls. Gallagher allegedly boasted about the large number of people he had killed, claiming he averaged three kills a day over 80 days, including four women.[1] Gallagher also was reportedly known for indiscriminately spraying neighborhoods with rockets and machine gun fire with no known enemy force in the region.[5]

A charge of obstruction of justice was brought against Gallagher for alleged witness intimidation. According to the claim, Gallagher allegedly threatened to kill fellow SEALs if they reported his actions.[2] The Navy cited his text messages as attempting to undermine the investigation, with messages sent to "pass the word on those traitors", meaning cooperating witnesses, and to get them blacklisted within the special warfare community.[5][1] This resulted in him being confined in the brig for a time with heavy restrictions on his ability to communicate, although this confinement was later lessened.[2]

Gallagher was also charged with "nearly a dozen" lesser offenses.[2]

According to the original Navy prosecutor Chris Czaplak, "Chief Gallagher decided to act like the monster the terrorists accuse us of being. He handed ISIS propaganda manna from heaven. His actions are everything ISIS says we are."[3][2]
....

In November 2019, President Trump declared that Gallagher's demotion would be reversed.[33] The move also included several other military members accused of misconduct: in addition to Gallagher, Lieutenant Clint Lorance was ordered freed as well as an end to the prosecution of Matthew Golsteyn.[33]

Yay, what a great day for America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. Now this man will attract like-minded psychopaths to his command to do these things even more, because they now know it's endorsed by the fucking president of the moral garbage pit of the world.

 

[tstorm823]

It is not a dumb question. I want it to be made crystal clear that you, tstorm823 are willing to support and endorse Trump's actions. You are. I realize you are trying to still be dodgy about it though, but no one is fooled. You are a Trump supporter, and that means that you are ok enough with the things Trump does to continue to support him.

Would you also like to make it clear to everyone that I breath air? Just in case they aren't sure and it might change their opinion of me?

 

[Saelune]

It is not a dumb question. I want it to be made crystal clear that you, tstorm823 are willing to support and endorse Trump's actions. You are. I realize you are trying to still be dodgy about it though, but no one is fooled. You are a Trump supporter, and that means that you are ok enough with the things Trump does to continue to support him.

Would you also like to make it clear to everyone that I breath air? Just in case they aren't sure and it might change their opinion of me?

By supporting Trump, you are supporting his views, his policies, and his actions. It means you are culpable. Breathing air does not. You can try to dismiss supporting a White Supremacist as just 'breathing air', but it just is more evidence of you shifting goalposts and making strawmen.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

I think I realised what it is about "OK Boomer" that leaves a bad taste in the mouth. It's the obvious comeback to comments criticising the naivete of youth, "darn kids don't know they're born", and so on. So is it fair game? Perhaps, but it's asymmetric. Everybody started off as a "darn kid" with tunnel vision and precocious ideas of their place in the world, but that's the kind of thing you grow out of in time and with the benefit of experience. Condemning somebody for being of a previous generation? That's a lot more damning, and a lot more final. Nobody expects you to have the grey matter to be able to revise your prehistoric ideas, they just expect you to hurry up and die.

Asymmetric? Perhaps, but in this context, not in the way you think.
After countless cases of kvetching about millenials "ruining the economy", the comeback that upsets boomers is "Ok boomer". That's not even an insult, "geezer" is more offensive than that!

And yeah, the precise idea of "ok boomer" is giving up on them to have this kind of revision. So you do the same things adults often do to kids - brush them off.
And it's not as much about hurrying them up to die(though i'm sure many wish that), as about making them stay outta way, and not act as a blockade to reforms. An idea boomers should be familiar with btw, because iirc Bob fucking Dylan already sang about it in the 60s.

 

[tstorm823]

By supporting Trump, you are supporting his views, his policies, and his actions. It means you are culpable. Breathing air does not. You can try to dismiss supporting a White Supremacist as just 'breathing air', but it just is more evidence of you shifting goalposts and making strawmen.

Donald Trump is not in any way, shape, or form, a white supremacist.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I think I realised what it is about "OK Boomer" that leaves a bad taste in the mouth. It's the obvious comeback to comments criticising the naivete of youth, "darn kids don't know they're born", and so on. So is it fair game? Perhaps, but it's asymmetric. Everybody started off as a "darn kid" with tunnel vision and precocious ideas of their place in the world, but that's the kind of thing you grow out of in time and with the benefit of experience. Condemning somebody for being of a previous generation? That's a lot more damning, and a lot more final. Nobody expects you to have the grey matter to be able to revise your prehistoric ideas, they just expect you to hurry up and die.

Asymmetric? Perhaps, but in this context, not in the way you think.
After countless cases of kvetching about millenials "ruining the economy", the comeback that upsets boomers is "Ok boomer". That's not even an insult, "geezer" is more offensive than that!

And yeah, the precise idea of "ok boomer" is giving up on them to have this kind of revision. So you do the same things adults often do to kids - brush them off.
And it's not as much about hurrying them up to die(though i'm sure many wish that), as about making them stay outta way, and not act as a blockade to reforms. An idea boomers should be familiar with btw, because iirc Bob fucking Dylan already sang about it in the 60s.

This is a great summary and I'd like to add.

The worst part of dealing with all of this is that we're constantly having our very real situation ignored for what it used to be. We all heard the "back in my day, I had a house when I was 18", "I went to school WHILE working a job and had plenty left over for the weekends", "I left my parents when I was 16 and never looked back"

But we don't live in the same realities. In 1976, the average yearly tuition for a 4 year school was 1,218 [https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_320.asp], while the average medium salary in 1976 was $12,000 [https://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-109.pdf]. A tenth of your salary? You're going to be alright.

In 2018, the average medium yearly income was $63,179 [https://wallethacks.com/average-median-income-in-america/]. A year at an average four year college? $34,740 [https://www.studentdebtrelief.us/news/average-cost-of-college-2018/].

That's what's known as more than half of your yearly tuition going to just education.

And Hell, you just need to look at some of the charts to see the difference of what our two different geneartions made versus what goes out in Rent [https://www.apartmentlist.com/rentonomics/rent-growth-since-1960/] to see it's not even close in terms of other costs.

A lot of the actual problems of our actual problems can be placed at the Boomers' feet deservedly. We're not the ones fighting against affordable health care, higher wages, and lower tuition. They are. Because if all those things that Millennials are fighting for actually happens, which of the two generations' bank book would be hurt? Hint for those are home who is reading this, it would not be the millennials.

The Crux of the anger is that we are going through these inequalities much by the decision of the Boomers in charge, and then we have to hear from the out of touch Boomers that we failed compared to them even though the playing field has been messed up since the word 'Go'.

 

[Saelune]

By supporting Trump, you are supporting his views, his policies, and his actions. It means you are culpable. Breathing air does not. You can try to dismiss supporting a White Supremacist as just 'breathing air', but it just is more evidence of you shifting goalposts and making strawmen.

Donald Trump is not in any way, shape, or form, a white supremacist.

His treatment of foreigners begs to differ. But you're fine with Trump putting brown children in cages and letting them suffer to death.

 

[Silvanus]

Because you have no actual point you're defending and have nothing to assert but the idea that I said something I didn't. I'm not sure what stake you have in this argument other than to say that I'm wrong.

Ok, sure, you didn't say the "if the fruits are good".

I mean, anyone who wants to can just scroll up and see those words verbatim, but sure.