ONTD Political



Pres. Obama's speech at the SHADE-A-THON White House Correspondents Dinner

Source
valkeakuulas 29th-Apr-2012 08:52 am (UTC)
Well, you've clearly stated that you find people in this place silly whining girls and give the vibe that you're here to show us our place with your superior male opinions.. so why do you expect us to engage in a conversation with a person who thinks like that?
stevie_jane 29th-Apr-2012 09:31 am (UTC)
Why would you expect an intelligent reply to absolute drivel? All you deserve is memes and disdain. You are not as smart as you think you are. You're just a trollish manchild.
stevie_jane 29th-Apr-2012 09:56 am (UTC)
Ahaha. You've been here a very short time and your pattern is already obvious.

panookah: *posts something inane/insulting/both*
reply: *the fuck? go away troll*
panookah: *YOU ARE ALL SO QUICK TO JUDGE I AM HERE TO HAVE A (FAUX) DEEP PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION AND YOU ARE ALL TOO INFERIOR TO GIVE ME WHAT I WANT. I AM A MAN YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO ME. GIVE ME ATTENTION. GIVE ME ATTENTION. ALSO WOMEN ARE SHALLOW AND ONLY VOTED FOR OBAMA BECAUSE HE'S CHARMING AND HOT. WHY ARE YOU SO SHALLOW AND SUCH WHINY VAGINAS OMG WHY DO WOMEN HATE ME?*
stevie_jane 29th-Apr-2012 10:14 am (UTC)
If you seriously think women only take into account superficial character attributes when they vote there is something seriously wrong with you. It's a nonsense stance. Only people who despise women take it. That is why no-one is interested in this discussion, and like people who replied to you before I'm just taking the piss out of you because I was bored.

We can see right through you, dude. You're dull!
valkeakuulas 29th-Apr-2012 10:29 am (UTC)
Exactly. He's made clear that he thinks this community is full of people that aren't to be taken seriously, and then demands we discuss politics with him. Life doesn't work that way. You don't walk into a room and announce people there are below your level and then try to have a serious conversation.
hamiltonia 29th-Apr-2012 10:19 am (UTC)
It's not really a dumb argument as much as it is an obvious one.

President skilled at political pageantry =/= a necessarily objectively good president.

Well, er... yeah? I don't think anyone here would honestly disagree with that stance.
ladypolitik 29th-Apr-2012 11:54 am (UTC)
See, you shouldnt have bothered! He's playing a predicable game, but I respect that you invested time in revealing that he`s desperate for a soapbox and a tiny violin, not substantive interaction. Much credit to you for the gross chore of attempting to sand down the chip on his shoulder, though.
kitschaster 29th-Apr-2012 10:44 am (UTC)
Which is pretty interesting, considering the fact that so many men voted for McCain/Palin, because "she was hot". Kind of directly counters his argument.

What also instantly counters his argument is the fact that men didn't want to vote for Hillary, because she "wasn't feminine enough". Which means that if any woman runs for president, looks are instantly going to be a factor. I still remember that meme floating around comparing Democratic women to Republican women, and how "homely" the Democratic women looked. If anything, his statement applies far more to men, because I haven't actually seen any memes women have created based on the way Democratic men look compared to Republican men.
stevie_jane 29th-Apr-2012 11:25 am (UTC)
HIVE MIND. That's a bingo!
hinoema 29th-Apr-2012 02:39 pm (UTC)
No, I'll point out the flaw in your reasoning. "Displaying looks and personality" at a humorous event =/= "being a good president", so the former cannot be generalized as the sum ("all it takes") of the latter. That's why I assumed you were trolling; the nonsensical equation of the two.

Edited at 2012-04-29 02:45 pm (UTC)
darsynia 29th-Apr-2012 04:04 pm (UTC)
Yes, because I have to like everything about someone if I like anything about them, and just because I think Obama is personable means I must think that is exactly the thing that qualifies him to be voted for!

I totally get what you're saying, but this is a misguided way to say it, IMO. How many times did we lament GWB's public 'did you see how clever I was' face and persona? How often did we wish we could feel in any way proud of our president while Bush was prez? Now when we're pleased with the behavior of Obama we have to be stoic and not enjoy it because God forbid we praise HIS public persona while disagreeing with his politics in any way!

Meh, seriously. I'm capable of nuanced views enough to say 'I love Obama's public persona but I really wish he spent more of that energy being the President I thought I was voting for.'
influencethis 29th-Apr-2012 05:08 pm (UTC)
Oh god, your grammar in this comment.

Actually it is an opinion packaged is a chaffing statement meant to illicit discussion


Corrected="Actually, it is an opinion packaged as a chafing statement meant to elicit discussion."

Chaffing: To make fun of in a good-natured way; tease.
Chafing: to cause friction.
You are clearly aiming for the latter.

Illicit: 1. Not sanctioned by custom or law; unlawful. 2. Linguistics Improperly formed; ungrammatical.
Elicit: a. To bring or draw out (something latent); educe. b. To arrive at (a truth, for example) by logic.
Again, wrong word use.

Now, I make this statement with the full expectation of receiving responses about how awesome it would be to marry Obama, and Obama bride this, Obama down the isle that.


"Bride" is not a verb.

But if you really stop and think about it... About the complexity of the presidency and why someone is or is not suited for that job, these things that all the cacklers in here are swooning over, have dreadfully little to do with it. At this point you may be wondering what sort of intelligent reply you could give me, but I fully expect...


Corrected="But if you really stop and think about it--about the complexity of the presidency and why someone is or is not suited for that job--these things that all the women in here are swooning over have dreadfully little to do with it. At this point you may be wondering what sort of intelligent reply you could give me, but I fully expect that I have drastically underestimated the average intelligence of this community."

Ellipses are used to mark unfinished thoughts or excluded sections of text. Here you are clearly trying to interject a full thought in the middle of a sentence, which is what the em-dash is used for.

You use the word cacklers, meaning "To laugh or talk in a shrill manner." The word "shrill" is a misogynist dog-whistle, often indicating that women are talking too much. A more intellectually honest option is to actually directly refer to subjects being discussed, i.e. women.

I believe the last correction stands for itself.

Edited at 2012-04-29 05:12 pm (UTC)
silver_sandals 29th-Apr-2012 10:09 pm (UTC)
You are epic. <3
influencethis 30th-Apr-2012 08:20 pm (UTC)
Aww thanks. I like to get my pedant on, and also translate douchebag into English.

Notice also how he replies to everyone but me.
oudeteron 29th-Apr-2012 10:37 pm (UTC)
I think you meant elicit.

And even then you're missing the point by a mile, but I guess that's not your expertise/you can't be asked to think about why that's so. People are calling you a troll because you keep waltzing into posts just to play the "but you're all stupid and I'm here to show you the light" card and generally be a condescending bully.

You can't post inflammatory shit and then flip out and play marginalized when people ~judge you.
meran_flash 30th-Apr-2012 08:06 am (UTC)
The White House Correspondents Dinner takes place every year, but thanks for playing.
This page was loaded Jul 30th 2014, 11:12 am GMT.