Four charged with attacking teen who said "Bluelivesmatter"
54 replies, posted
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51211167]"All lives matter, but perhaps Hillary lives don't."
I wonder why people find the term "all lives matter" stupid. It's almost as if "black lives matter" means "black lives matter [B]too[/B]".
But please, continue to dehumanise Clinton supporters.[/QUOTE]
Geeze, i thought it was clear that its a joke referring to the heated hillary vs trump debates here...
But no, make some more fun of reddit the donald people, you are clearly above that kind of stuff.
Im autistic as fuck and shit but not even i have such a huge stick up my ass...
[QUOTE]It's almost as if "black lives matter" means "black lives matter [B]too[/B]".[/QUOTE]
Perhaps almost, but not quite...
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51211200]Geeze, i thought it was clear that its a joke referring to the heated hillary vs trump debates here...
But no, make some more fun of reddit the donald people, you are clearly above that kind of stuff.
Im autistic as fuck and shit but not even i have such a huge stick up my ass...[/QUOTE]
As someone who has been diagnosed as having Aspergers (I don't know really what to make of it), I'm getting pretty sick of you using the "autism" excuse for the uninformed tripe you post, especially when the supposed "joke" wasn't clearly advertised.
Especially since you tired to claim "'gas the Jews' does not objectively mean gas the Jews."
Yeah, maybe I do have a huge stick up my ass. It's not hard to when you're terrified about what's going to happen on Election Day.
I just [B]LOVE[/B] reading the charges for the people who assault others for their own beliefs, fuck 'em.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51211234]As someone who has been diagnosed as having Aspergers (I don't know really what to make of it), I'm getting pretty sick of you using the "autism" excuse for the uninformed tripe you post, especially when the supposed "joke" wasn't clearly advertised.
Especially since you tired to claim "'gas the Jews' does not objectively mean gas the Jews."
Yeah, maybe I do have a huge stick up my ass. It's not hard to when you're terrified about what's going to happen on Election Day.[/QUOTE]
Just don't arm up and start a revolution when the wrong person gets elected and we will get along just fine.
Im not going to make a comment about the gas the jews thing other then that it got pulled wayyyy out of context since my point was that language is not objective.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51211317]Just don't arm up and start a revolution when the wrong person gets elected and we will get along just fine.
Im not going to make a comment about the gas the jews thing other then that it got pulled wayyyy out of context since my point was that language is not objective.[/QUOTE]
Language is objective, the concepts conveyed by language might not be objective. This is not a hard concept to grasp. If language wasn't objective then dictionaries wouldn't be useful.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51211530]Language is objective, the concepts conveyed by language might not be objective. This is not a hard concept to grasp. If language wasn't objective then dictionaries wouldn't be useful.[/QUOTE]
Then why do dictionaries constantly have to iterate and change and why do some dictionaries directly oppose each others definitions?
language is not objective, its a constantly evolving thing that is a little different for everyone. thats the reason why dictionaries exist in the first place, so we can figure out how other people see it and what the commonly accepted current middle ground is.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51211886]Then why do dictionaries constantly have to iterate and change and why do some dictionaries directly oppose each others definitions?
language is not objective, its a constantly evolving thing that is a little different for everyone. thats the reason why dictionaries exist in the first place, so we can figure out how other people see it and what the commonly accepted current middle ground is.[/QUOTE]
Subjective =/= constantly evolving.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51211886]Then why do dictionaries constantly have to iterate and change and why do some dictionaries directly oppose each others definitions?[/QUOTE]
Words can have multiple definitions. Words evolve over time. Neither of these things indicate subjectivity as words are still being concretely defined.
[quote]
language is not objective, its a constantly evolving thing that is a little different for everyone. [/quote]
The evolution of language doesn't mean that the definition of words is subjective. To give a biological analogy a dog was a wolf a couple thousand years ago. That does not mean that dogs and wolves are subjective.
Furthermore if words were subjective to the individual then language would not function anymore. Words are how we describe the environment around us, if words cease to hold concrete definitions then we would not be able to convey meaning or information to those that surround us. If language was completely subjective then society would be unable to function at any level as meaningful social interactions would not be possible. To put it simply, if a word can mean anything to anyone then that word loses its ability to convey information.
[quote]
thats the reason why dictionaries exist in the first place, so we can figure out how other people see it and what the commonly accepted current middle ground is.[/quote]
The fact that dictionaries exist (aka something that gives CONCRETE definitions of words) indicates that words cannot be subjective as they can be concretely defined.
You are incorrect at all possible levels in this discussion.
[QUOTE=Apache249;51211915]Subjective =/= constantly evolving.[/QUOTE]
So you are saying its constantly evolving at the exact same pace for everyone?
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51212047]So you are saying its constantly evolving at the exact same pace for everyone?[/QUOTE]
read my post.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51212015]You are incorrect at all possible levels in this discussion.[/QUOTE]
I'd beg to differ, but this is not the place to hold that debate.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51212055]I'd beg to differ, but this is not the place to hold that debate.[/QUOTE]
so basically you can't actually argue your point.
This is literally a hate crime, what the fuck man.
What the fuck is with the anti-police mindset? Like yeah lets kill all police, we don't need protecton from crime, we can do it ourselfs!
[QUOTE=madmanmad;51212118]What the fuck is with the anti-police mindset? Like yeah lets kill all police, we don't need protecton from crime, we can do it ourselfs![/QUOTE]
People who are anti-police generally fall into one of two catagories:
1. The community can handle crime on their own (generally left-wing)
2. I can handle the criminal on my own (generally right-wing, armed defense strongly implied)
Joey Salads was right all along
[QUOTE=AbbaDee;51209202]But now dissenting opinions rile up both the alt-left and the alt-right, which has lead to attacks like the one in this news article. It feels like we're steering towards disaster with the rise of "social justice warriors" and repressed values of the alt-right. Just months ago there were people shooting cops at a BLM protest.[/QUOTE]
The horseshoe model turns out to be the correct one, and right now both extremes have started converging into a singularity of stupid.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51211167]"All lives matter, but perhaps Hillary lives don't."
I wonder why people find the term "all lives matter" stupid. It's almost as if "black lives matter" means "black lives matter [B]too[/B]".
But please, continue to dehumanise Clinton supporters.[/QUOTE]
The term "all lives matter" is looked down at because of how people use it. It's usually used as a phrase by people who get a massive boner out of correcting people and downplaying the affected party's issues.
"Blue lives matter, we need attention brought to this injustice"
"No lol, ALL lives matter"
Black lives matter, we want more body cameras!"
"No, ALL lives matter :^)"
It's that kind of context that pisses people off. It's really only used to deny people the importance of a specific injustice to a group of people.
[QUOTE=Grimhound;51213318]The horseshoe model turns out to be the correct one, and right now both extremes have started converging into a singularity of stupid.[/QUOTE]
Right. I am hesitant to post this but due to encouragement of many people, Ill post another theory I have concerning this.
This is a theory basic and structured on the psychological structure of authoritarian ideas. Both left and right.
It states that ever since the dawn of humanity, all the idiots, crazy, deluded, dishonest people outnumbered decent, sane, smart people. The only people left to lead this crazies were predatory leaders.
The predatory leaders realized the more insane and sick they made the idiots, the more money, power. wealth and pussy they got. So to increase these things, the predatory (exploiters) make people even more dumb, insane, deluded, nasty, dishonest and submissive/
Which in turn made the masses more likely to turn and eliminate smart, sane, decent people and work to eliminate all the ideas that were good for people and were valid.
So the process has gone on to the point the only ideas that exist are the toxic ones. I call this the Hemlock process. I call the hemlock process in honor of Socrates who symbolizes this idea perfectly.
Any one who disagrees with this idea is under the "false consciousness" of this process until they acknowledge the only valid idea is hemlock theory.
Its a rough draft but it is based on a rudimentary knowledge of history, how cults work and mental dysfunction in groups.
It designed to counter the either you with us or against us mentality use on moderates (read sane people). It reclassifies all groups into either extremists or non extremist. It designed to neutralize the psychological processes violent extremists use to goad people into well, violence.
What advice or criticisms do you have of this idea?
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51212056]so basically you can't actually argue your point.[/QUOTE]
Without getting banned for one reason or another (derailing) even if its you constantly poking me with it... yes.
If you want to have a debate create a thread somewhere where its appropriate and link it.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51212015]Words can have multiple definitions. Words evolve over time. Neither of these things indicate subjectivity as words are still being concretely defined.
The evolution of language doesn't mean that the definition of words is subjective. To give a biological analogy a dog was a wolf a couple thousand years ago. That does not mean that dogs and wolves are subjective.
Furthermore if words were subjective to the individual then language would not function anymore. Words are how we describe the environment around us, if words cease to hold concrete definitions then we would not be able to convey meaning or information to those that surround us. If language was completely subjective then society would be unable to function at any level as meaningful social interactions would not be possible. To put it simply, if a word can mean anything to anyone then that word loses its ability to convey information.
The fact that dictionaries exist (aka something that gives CONCRETE definitions of words) indicates that words cannot be subjective as they can be concretely defined.
You are incorrect at all possible levels in this discussion.[/QUOTE]
Language is most certainly subjective.
Your argument hinges almost entirely on the idea that if language was subjective then society would immediately collapse. That's simply not the case.
Language is just a group of people coming to an agreement that certain sounds mean certain things.
That group doesn't have to be "everyone who speaks the language", the only important thing is that people who talk to each other have a similar definition of the words they're using.
If two people agree that "Xckleblyud" means banana then it means banana for those two people. If they then start using it in common conversation, and end up having to explain what it means to other people, then everyone they've explained it to now also understand that "Xckleblyud" means banana. If people like the word and decide to use it themselves, then it starts to spread even further. That's how new words are made. People simply start to use them.
But, similarly to how there's thousands of permutations of old folk stories, every word also has thousands of permutations across the world. Everyone has a slightly different understanding of what a word means. All the various definitions are (usually) very similar, but they're not the same. Some people think the word gun should only mean a cannon.
Some people think gun should mean a personal firearm. Some people think the word gun should mean both, and also refer to your biceps.
And then there's connotations. Hidden meanings that some people attribute to a word. For some people, nigger is an offensive word no matter what the context. For some it's offensive in certain contexts but not others. For some it's a term of endearment.
Some languages have an official language regulating committee that picks out the most commonly used definitions of a word and makes it official. That still doesn't make it objective. It's still entirely subjective to the individual, it's simply what most people agreed that it meant at the time the definition of the word was accepted. It does not even have to be the most commonly understood definition of the word.
However, just to further deny your dictionary argument, English is actually not like that at all. It does not have official language regulation, neither in America nor in Britain. So not only do English words not have objective definitions, they do not even have official definitions either. This is why, as Blizzerd pointed out, if you go to different English dictionaries and look up the same word in them, they'll have different definitions. Probably similar definitions, but rarely the same.
One final argument for why words are subjective; semantic disputes.
This is when an argument or disagreement stems not from a genuine opposition to each others' ideas, but rather from different understandings of the words the "opposition" uses to formulate the idea. Many people believe this may be the most common type of argument, and it's existence is entirely due to the fact that language is subjective.
[QUOTE=elowin;51216140]Language is most certainly subjective.
Your argument hinges almost entirely on the idea that if language was subjective then society would immediately collapse. That's simply not the case.
Language is just a group of people coming to an agreement that certain sounds mean certain things.
That group doesn't have to be "everyone who speaks the language", the only important thing is that people who talk to each other have a similar definition of the words they're using.
If two people agree that "Xckleblyud" means banana then it means banana for those two people. If they then start using it in common conversation, and end up having to explain what it means to other people, then everyone they've explained it to now also understand that "Xckleblyud" means banana. If people like the word and decide to use it themselves, then it starts to spread even further. That's how new words are made. People simply start to use them.
But, similarly to how there's thousands of permutations of old folk stories, every word also has thousands of permutations across the world. Everyone has a slightly different understanding of what a word means. All the various definitions are (usually) very similar, but they're not the same. Some people think the word gun should only mean a cannon.
Some people think gun should mean a personal firearm. Some people think the word gun should mean both, and also refer to your biceps.
And then there's connotations. Hidden meanings that some people attribute to a word. For some people, nigger is an offensive word no matter what the context. For some it's offensive in certain contexts but not others. For some it's a term of endearment.
Some languages have an official language regulating committee that picks out the most commonly used definitions of a word and makes it official. That still doesn't make it objective. It's still entirely subjective to the individual, it's simply what most people agreed that it meant at the time the definition of the word was accepted. It does not even have to be the most commonly understood definition of the word.
However, just to further deny your dictionary argument, English is actually not like that at all. It does not have official language regulation, neither in America nor in Britain. So not only do English words not have objective definitions, they do not even have official definitions either. This is why, as Blizzerd pointed out, if you go to different English dictionaries and look up the same word in them, they'll have different definitions. Probably similar definitions, but rarely the same.
One final argument for why words are subjective; semantic disputes.
This is when an argument or disagreement stems not from a genuine opposition to each others' ideas, but rather from different understandings of the words the "opposition" uses to formulate the idea. Many people believe this may be the most common type of argument, and it's existence is entirely due to the fact that language is subjective.[/QUOTE]
Careful there, buddy... my experience teaches me you are about to get banned.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Predicting moderation" - Starpluck))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51211167]"All lives matter, but perhaps Hillary lives don't."
I wonder why people find the term "all lives matter" stupid. It's almost as if "black lives matter" means "black lives matter [B]too[/B]".
But please, continue to dehumanise Clinton supporters.[/QUOTE]
Then maybe a more clear name should have been chosen? Imagine someone asking you, if you support black lives matter. If you say no and try to explain what you dislike about the movement, they will go "so black lives don't matter?", racist and etc, and use that to hammer you while ignoring all your points.
It's pathetic and deserves to be laughed at. It's almost like the name is supposed to cause tensions by design.
[QUOTE=Omesh;51216513]Then maybe a more clear name should have been chosen? Imagine someone asking you, if you support black lives matter. If you say no and try to explain what you dislike about the movement, they will go "so black lives don't matter?", racist and etc, and use that to hammer you while ignoring all your points.
It's pathetic and deserves to be laughed at. It's almost like the name is supposed to cause tensions by design.[/QUOTE]
What? But the name is clear. It doesn't somehow automatically mean that other lives don't matter at all, that's just plain silly. If you dislike the movement, and someone replies to you as you described, that's just stupidity from them, but it doesn't make the movement or the ideology itself any less wrong, especially the name.
If these idiots had [B]spam[/B] they wouldn't be hyper-aggressive dicks who hate freedom of speech and hate blue people
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.