“You people” on steroids
-
@Horace said in “You people” on steroids:
@jon-nyc said in “You people” on steroids:
You still haven’t listened to the full quote I see.
“I’m no better than you. I’m a 960 SAT guy.”
I don't suppose there's any chance you could explain why you think that means "I'm dumb just like you" isn't an accurate paraphrase.
For the same reason they omitted the sentence that changes its meaning. = and !> are two different comparators.
@jon-nyc said in “You people” on steroids:
@Horace said in “You people” on steroids:
@jon-nyc said in “You people” on steroids:
You still haven’t listened to the full quote I see.
“I’m no better than you. I’m a 960 SAT guy.”
I don't suppose there's any chance you could explain why you think that means "I'm dumb just like you" isn't an accurate paraphrase.
For the same reason they omitted the sentence that changes its meaning. = and <= are two different comparators.
I understand precious framings. And I understand why you hypocritically omit the previous sentence. But the full quote "I'm like you. I'm no better than you. I'm a 960 SAT guy. I can't read a speech" is taken as a self-effacing reduction of oneself, down to the level of the audience.
-
@Horace said in “You people” on steroids:
But I won't hold my breath for an honest engagement here.
Says the guy who posts a misquote, has it pointed out to him, and still won’t acknowledge it.
@jon-nyc said in “You people” on steroids:
@Horace said in “You people” on steroids:
But I won't hold my breath for an honest engagement here.
Says the guy who posts a misquote, has it pointed out to him, and still won’t acknowledge it.
I have explained to you that the full quote does not change the context like your tribe wishes it did. Your own quote omits the "I'm like you", while you whine about others omitting important words.
-
The second sentence changes the meaning that’s why. Why do you think they omitted it? That’s a question you’ve dodged several times now.
Also, odd you don’t mention the “I can’t read’ misquote and the omitted paragraph. That’s obviously disingenuous to the point of being a straight up lie.
-
The second sentence changes the meaning that’s why. Why do you think they omitted it? That’s a question you’ve dodged several times now.
Also, odd you don’t mention the “I can’t read’ misquote and the omitted paragraph. That’s obviously disingenuous to the point of being a straight up lie.
@jon-nyc said in “You people” on steroids:
The second sentence changes the meaning that’s why.
It would have to directly contradict the meaning of the previous sentence, for it to suit your purposes. It does not. The previous sentence stands, and is not contradicted by the next one.
Why do you think they omitted it? That’s a question you’ve dodged several times now.
I'm not an idiot, jon. Of course I know it makes the rhetoric more pointed. It's the same reason you omit the first sentence. It's how you pretend it doesn't exist, or that it somehow gets erased by the next sentence.
Also, odd you don’t mention the “I can’t read’ misquote and the omitted paragraph. That’s obviously disingenuous to the point of being a straight up lie.
"I can't read a speech", it's again a precious framing on your part. I know you don't see how your mind wriggles in these situations, but the lies here are the ones you are telling yourself.
Education is extremely important.
-
@jon-nyc said in “You people” on steroids:
The second sentence changes the meaning that’s why.
It would have to directly contradict the meaning of the previous sentence, for it to suit your purposes. It does not. The previous sentence stands, and is not contradicted by the next one.
Why do you think they omitted it? That’s a question you’ve dodged several times now.
I'm not an idiot, jon. Of course I know it makes the rhetoric more pointed. It's the same reason you omit the first sentence. It's how you pretend it doesn't exist, or that it somehow gets erased by the next sentence.
Also, odd you don’t mention the “I can’t read’ misquote and the omitted paragraph. That’s obviously disingenuous to the point of being a straight up lie.
"I can't read a speech", it's again a precious framing on your part. I know you don't see how your mind wriggles in these situations, but the lies here are the ones you are telling yourself.
-
I don’t think the word ‘framing’ means what you think it does. “I can’t read” and “I can’t read my speeches” are two very different things.
@jon-nyc said in “You people” on steroids:
I don’t think the word ‘framing’ means what you think it does. “I can’t read” and “I can’t read my speeches” are two very different things.
It's just where you've retreated in a desperate attempt to divert to a meaningless win on a meaningless detail. As per usual. Tell me again how "I'm like you. I'm no better than you" are somehow contradictory and the second sentence erases the first. Tell me that again, I'm enjoying watching this.
-
Anyway, anybody knows that Newsom, in front of an audience of, say, MIT students, would not conceivably use those words. The words would only be used when talking to an audience of presumptively mediocre intellectual ability. They are condescending words. They are head-patting words. They are the words of a man who assumes the audience considers itself intellectually mediocre, and who wants to be non-threatening to such an audience. That's just obvious, but it's something jon would be incapable of admitting. As he calls others dishonest.
-
This is a good time to remind you to watch the show Silicon Valley if you haven't. One of the best comedic antagonists in a while... Gavin Newsom, I mean Gavin Belson. Even has the same hair style.
Link to video -
@jon-nyc said in “You people” on steroids:
Let’s see what this libtard had to say.
Newsom was in "talking to black people" mode. Even with quite a few white faces, it was probably the blackest crowd he ever gets. It was hosted in a majority black college. He was introduced by a black congressperson from GA, who invoked MLK in her introduction. The host and Newsom discussed within the first five minutes MLK and Rosa parks and how the Fulton County crowd (42% black) knows all about that. The host, noticing the crowd was talking back, said he appreciated them because it was just like church (reference to black culture).
But I'm happy that you've chosen this line of attack. It's your best option, and it's not as painfully stupid as your contention that in a discussion, each successive sentence erases the meaning of the previous sentence. Oh I know, that's a straw man. Except it's not. It's the only way to make sense of your claim that "I'm like you. I'm no better than you" means that "I'm like you" was never actually said.
-
The most interesting thing about this is how one Magtard account known for passing on disinformation can doubly misquote him and lie about the setting and the entire right wing runs with it. Then when the errors are pointed out, they immediately go into ‘it’s fake but accurate’ mode. With rare but honorable exceptions such as Rufo.
The whole reason we call them illegal aliens is because they’re subject to our laws.
-
The most interesting thing about this is how one Magtard account known for passing on disinformation can doubly misquote him and lie about the setting and the entire right wing runs with it. Then when the errors are pointed out, they immediately go into ‘it’s fake but accurate’ mode. With rare but honorable exceptions such as Rufo.
@jon-nyc said in “You people” on steroids:
The most interesting thing about this is how one Magtard account known for passing on disinformation can doubly misquote him and lie about the setting and the entire right wing runs with it. Then when the errors are pointed out, they immediately go into ‘it’s fake but accurate’ mode. With rare but honorable exceptions such as Rufo.
You’ve yet to admit the obvious, that the words as spoken were condescending. It would be inconceivable to say them to a room of MIT students, or a room of white collar professionals. Again, obvious, and again, something you're incapable of admitting. While you call everybody on the other side "dishonorable".
Newsom’s intention was for the appearance to be black outreach. That is undeniable from the fact it was hosted at a majority black college. He had no control over who bought tickets, but it was probably the blackest audience he’s had just the same.
-
@jon-nyc said in “You people” on steroids:
More kudos to Rufo here, pushing back on yet another major magtard account.
It was an unequivocally black context, if you listen to the interview and consider the venue. Newsom was in "talking to black people" mode, and that was the intention of choosing that venue, regardless of how many white faces ended up buying tickets.
