Protestors Are Assholes

[Salty]

FTR, you assuming things seems to be your approach to discourse here.

Please, feel free to provide me with a list of things that you think I've inaccurately assumed.

And then what? Do your laundry? Cut up your food? You are, presumably, a grown human. Surely, you can go back and hazard a guess.

My mistake, I assumed that your criticism was in earnest.

And now you're assuming otherwise.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

OR HOW ABOUT:  Claim that your opponent is using hyperbole when he's dead serious, as a means to dismiss an argument.

Now, if this thread is going to be you making or altering other peoples' arguments for them, say so now, please.

Am I attempting to dismantle an argument by claiming someone is being hyperbolic when they aren't?

I assumed that Vivat was being hyperbolic, and I explained why.

If you want to debate whether or not Trump objectively qualifies as a Nazi, I suggest you start a new thread. Until then, I will continue - in this thread - to view that accusation as an attempt to undermine what is essentially a straw-manning of my original point.

Original post: People who immediately protest the legitimate and democratic elections of Presidents are assholes and we either rationalize or ignore their behavior if we share the same political views or use them to demonize the opposing party if we don't.

Straw-manned argument: Conservatism and liberalism are equally valid points of view.

Argument against the straw-man: Conservatism is invalid because they are Nazis. Not just like Nazis, but actual, real, genuine Nazis.

I wasn't talking about Alty.  He's a smart guy, he can make his own arguments.

I called Trump and his supporters Nazis because they are indistinguishable from the early Nazi party, except that they are incompetent at it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Any protest that doesn't piss off a lot of people and seem totally unreasonable to outsiders is probably a shitty protest.

Also this.

[Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard]

Any protest that doesn't piss off a lot of people and seem totally unreasonable to outsiders is probably a shitty protest.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

More specifically, people who immediately protest a systematically valid and uncontested presidential election are assholes.

I take it you just haven't bothered reading about the voter suppression issue, then, and also don't quite grasp the purpose of protests or what they can accomplish.

You seem to be saying that whoever loses should simply sit down and shut up, no matter what.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It might be worth noting that extensive voter suppression is a completely legitimate reason to protest.

I agree, but these people haven't been protesting voter suppression; they've been protesting the way that the country decided to vote. They are quite literally demonstrating against a system of democracy simply because it didn't work for them this one time: just like the assholes who did it last time, and the time before that, and the time before that...

Hmmmm, I wonder... what possible political gain could come from wide-scale protests of the election of a man who ran on a platform heavily based in bigotry and xenophobia, and appointed a white nationalist organizer to his cabinet? Hmmmmm, I wonder.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

That is, however, a topic on which I'm probably unqualified to reliably speculate.

Thank fuck you have at least this much self-awareness. Too bad you can't seem to apply it more broadly.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Haha, well, that's not generally how burden of proof in an argument works, but I understand what you're saying.

Pretty sure that's exactly how it works. You open the thread, your statements require proof. Am I wrong here? Have I been egregiously misinformed, people?

I wasn't asking for proof or evidence

You were claiming my point was hyperbole, I countered with evidence this is not so.

No, I don't think you've missed anything. It's just that when you argue with a SGiTR, you can't expect consistency of logical thought or any real level of competence in the topic at hand.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You positioned the left and the right as equally opposing sides in regard to this election.

I said that was erroneous and gave my reasons.

Now we are in quibbling over definitions and what is and what is not Godwin's Law.

Memo to self,1 reword a speech by Hitler to trump style.
2 claim its an actual speech by trump
3 ???
4 profit

I think you have a winning proposition, my good man.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

OR HOW ABOUT:  Claim that your opponent is using hyperbole when he's dead serious, as a means to dismiss an argument.

Now, if this thread is going to be you making or altering other peoples' arguments for them, say so now, please.

Am I attempting to dismantle an argument by claiming someone is being hyperbolic when they aren't?

I assumed that Vivat was being hyperbolic, and I explained why.

If you want to debate whether or not Trump objectively qualifies as a Nazi, I suggest you start a new thread. Until then, I will continue - in this thread - to view that accusation as an attempt to undermine what is essentially a straw-manning of my original point.

Original post: People who immediately protest the legitimate and democratic elections of Presidents are assholes and we either rationalize their behavior if they share the same political views or use them to demonize the opposing party if we don't.

Straw-manned argument: Conservatism and liberalism are equally valid points of view.

Argument against the straw-man: Conservatism is invalid because they are Nazis. Not just like Nazis, but actual, real, genuine Nazis.

LONG LIVE VIVAT!

VIVAT VIVAT!!!

[Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard]

More specifically, people who immediately protest a systematically valid and uncontested presidential election are assholes.

I take it you just haven't bothered reading about the voter suppression issue, then, and also don't quite grasp the purpose of protests or what they can accomplish.

You seem to be saying that whoever loses should simply sit down and shut up, no matter what.

These people weren't protesting voter suppression, nor were they using that as an excuse for protesting a democratic vote. Fun fact: no data has been presented which has shown that "voter suppression" led to Trump's victory. There are a scant few news articles that have tried to run with that narrative, but if you're forming protests and vandalizing public property because of what you read in a news story, you're even more of an asshole than I originally claimed.

You're still rationalizing the most recent wave of protests. Rather than arguing against my original point, you're reinforcing it.

[Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard]

Haha, well, that's not generally how burden of proof in an argument works, but I understand what you're saying.

Pretty sure that's exactly how it works. You open the thread, your statements require proof. Am I wrong here? Have I been egregiously misinformed, people?

I wasn't asking for proof or evidence

You were claiming my point was hyperbole, I countered with evidence this is not so.

No, I don't think you've missed anything. It's just that when you argue with a SGiTR, you can't expect consistency of logical thought or any real level of competence in the topic at hand.

Just because I point out that the burden of proof is on someone else to justify a claim doesn't mean I care to hear it. Especially when that explanation is predictably asinine.

[Salty]

Haha, well, that's not generally how burden of proof in an argument works, but I understand what you're saying.

Pretty sure that's exactly how it works. You open the thread, your statements require proof. Am I wrong here? Have I been egregiously misinformed, people?

I wasn't asking for proof or evidence

You were claiming my point was hyperbole, I countered with evidence this is not so.

No, I don't think you've missed anything. It's just that when you argue with a SGiTR, you can't expect consistency of logical thought or any real level of competence in the topic at hand.

Just because I point out that the burden of proof is on someone else to justify a claim doesn't mean I care to hear it. Especially when that explanation is predictably asinine.

Hey, woah, that's not even what happened.
This is.

[Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard]

Hmmmm, I wonder... what possible political gain could come from wide-scale protests of the election of a man who ran on a platform heavily based in bigotry and xenophobia, and appointed a white nationalist organizer to his cabinet? Hmmmmm, I wonder.

They're assholes. My impression is that they're young and naive, predominantly white with upper-middle-class parents, and they get their news from Facebook. As I've already pointed out, many of them didn't even fucking vote, and here in my hometown, they demonstrated in a state that already voted the way they wanted it to. And being reminded of Hitler doesn't make them not assholes.

You want so hard for me to debate Trump with you, but I'm not going to do it. Trump has fuck-all to do with my point. I can't help it if you can't wrap your brain around that.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

More specifically, people who immediately protest a systematically valid and uncontested presidential election are assholes.

I take it you just haven't bothered reading about the voter suppression issue, then, and also don't quite grasp the purpose of protests or what they can accomplish.

You seem to be saying that whoever loses should simply sit down and shut up, no matter what.

These people weren't protesting voter suppression, nor were they using that as an excuse for protesting a democratic vote. Fun fact: no data has been presented which has shown that "voter suppression" led to Trump's victory. There are a scant few news articles that have tried to run with that narrative, but if you're forming protests and vandalizing public property because of what you read in a news story, you're even more of an asshole than I originally claimed.

You're still rationalizing the most recent wave of protests. Rather than arguing against my original point, you're reinforcing it.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/why-anti-trump-protests-matter-w450561

Hundreds of thousands of people, from New York City to Los Angeles, from Columbia, South Carolina to Salt Lake City, Utah took to the streets en masse to protest the election of a man who promised, among other things, to force Muslims to register and to repeal a health care bill that helps some 20 million people get health insurance, and who has been accused of sexual assault by at least 13 women. Hand-scrawled signs declared "Not My President," "No To Bigotry," "Trump Puts My Life In Danger," and "Protests Are Patriotic."

Gosh, what is it that these people are protesting, exactly?