|
Post by robeiae on Nov 9, 2017 8:36:50 GMT -5
Yeah, all other things being equal, I wouldn't condemn genuine thoughts and prayers - the operative word being 'genuine'. I would welcome and commend them. But it's patently insulting - cruel, even - for an elected leader, whose responsibility is to do well and good by the people - to blandly offer "thoughts and prayers" as a stand-in for, oh, relief, aid, and changes that can save lives and preserve the lives and liberty of people who, you know, want to be able to go about their lives without being mown down. That's the liberty that comes first: not the liberty to wield personal death machines. In those cases, "thoughts and prayers" is just code for "I'm not lifting a finger to help, and don't you dare question a Christian" (regardless of whether they ever go to church or say prayers). It's a bluff. So, I see very little problem with the tweets above. They wouldn't make the top 10,000 problems with the events of the past week. Well, I think it fair to take issue with public figures--elected leaders, especially--for not doing enough to solve a problem, though of course there's not always full agreement on what a given problem is and if a given leader could actually do something. But I think you're way off base on what "thoughts and prayers" is. Maybe on occasion it's code as you say, but more often than not--when it comes to public figures--is simple PR. They are expected to say something. For a long time, offering thoughts and prayers met that expectation (and public figures who failed to show sympathy could catch heat for that failure). And frankly, it still does for many people. Maybe not for you, but then you can't speak for everyone, can you? And you can't know who is expressing genuine sympathy and who is full of shit, right? So, back to the above tweets... Here was Ryan's tweet: You can take issue with Ryan, you can argue that he isn't doing is job, that he is an NRA stooge, but that tweet is fairly benign and directed to his followers on twitter, to his constituents, to the people who support him, no? Now look again at Olberman's and Wheaton's tweets. Those are intended to insult and belittle a specific person (in this case, Ryan). They're mean. And let's get clear on something else here, too: Wheaton and Olbermann are public figures. While it's fair to see offers of thoughts and prayers as empty platitudes or worse, isn't it also fair to see criticism of such expressions (from public figures and elected officials) as attention seeking, first and foremost? I mean, if we can assume Ryan doesn't really care about these people, can't we assume the exact same thing about people like Wheaton and Olbermann (especially Olbermann), that they're just using the tragedy and the "thoughts and prayers" stuff to go after people they don't like and (more importantly, imo) get some attention for themselves?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 9, 2017 11:47:28 GMT -5
<abbr title="Nov 8, 2017 23:45:43 GMT -5" data-timestamp="1510202743000" class="o-timestamp time">Nov 8, 2017 23:45:43 GMT -5</abbr> nighttimer said: Yeah. It kinda does. Robert Scott Marshall, a 56-year-old male. Karen Sue Marshall, a 56-year-old female. Keith Allen Braden, a 62-year-old male. Tara E. McNulty, a 33-year-old female. Annabelle Renae Pomeroy, a 14-year-old female. Peggy Lynn Warden, a 56-year-old female. Dennis Neil Johnson Sr., a 77-year-old male. Sara Johns Johnson, a 68-year-old female. Lula Woicinski White, a 71-year-old female. Joann Lookingbill Ward, a 30-year-old female. Brooke Bryanne Ward, a 5-year-old female. Robert Michael Corrigan, a 51-year-old male. Shani Louise Corrigan, a 51-year-old female. Therese Sagan Rodriguez, a 66-year-old female. Ricardo Cardona Rodriguez, a 64-year-old male. Haley Krueger, a 16-year-old female. Emily Garcia, a 7-year-old female. She died at a hospital. Emily Rose Hill, an 11-year-old female. Gregory Lynn Hill, a 13-year-old male. Megan Gail Hill, a 9-year-old female. Marc Daniel Holcombe, a 36-year-old male. Noah Holcombe, a 1-year-old female. Karla Plain Holcombe, a 58-year-old female. John Bryan Holcombe, a 60-year-old male. Crystal Marie Holcombe, a pregnant 36-year-old female. Carlin Brite “Billy Bob” Holcombe, the unborn baby of Crystal Holcombe, gender unknown. What is posting a list of victims supposed to prove? If you don't know me telling you isn't going to help. People are assholes. That's good for you. What's it got to do with me? No, you're not. You're not me and you don't know what I know and you don't react to things the way I do and you never ever will. That's you being obnoxiously presumptuous. That's what I'm talking about here. If you don't want to talk about it talk to someone else. You're tap dancing. The video. Dark or sick?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 9, 2017 11:58:03 GMT -5
What is posting a list of victims supposed to prove? If you don't know me telling you isn't going to help. That is your standard answer to most challenges. You post a wall of text or something in BIG BAD BOLD LETTERS like you are making some profound statement, you are asked to clarify because your rhetorical point is all flash and no substance, and you reply "If you don't know what I meant, I can't explain it to you." Not expecting this to change, just pointing out that everyone sees it for what it is, so it's not working. I'll make my statement more explicit though: I pointed out that "You know what's a funny?" was not a comment on the people being killed. You replied with a list of the people who were killed. That was meant to score a rhetorical point, but it was devoid of actual value. I'm saying if you label everyone who offends you as "evil" and declare that only humor that doesn't offend you is non-evil, your thinking is judgmental and narrow-minded. Of course I don't believe you actually think that, I believe you were just trying to score rhetorical points. Rob used the word "funny" and you're running as hard as you can with "WHAT?! YOU THINK DEAD PEOPLE ARE FUNNY? WHAT AN EVIL PERSON YOU ARE!!!!!"In this specific instance, yes, I do. No, I'm asserting confidently that you knew no one was saying dead people are funny, and you're being disingenuous in continuing to pretend anyone was. On the remote chance that you actually believed this, you've been corrected several times now. I know this distresses you, but you do not get to decide what we do and do not talk about or who talks to you, and I'm going to keep rubbing your nose in your original fallacious point no matter how hard you wriggle and squirm. Sick. Also not a joke, and not what we were discussing.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 9, 2017 12:23:48 GMT -5
Yeah, all other things being equal, I wouldn't condemn genuine thoughts and prayers - the operative word being 'genuine'. I would welcome and commend them. But it's patently insulting - cruel, even - for an elected leader, whose responsibility is to do well and good by the people - to blandly offer "thoughts and prayers" as a stand-in for, oh, relief, aid, and changes that can save lives and preserve the lives and liberty of people who, you know, want to be able to go about their lives without being mown down. That's the liberty that comes first: not the liberty to wield personal death machines. In those cases, "thoughts and prayers" is just code for "I'm not lifting a finger to help, and don't you dare question a Christian" (regardless of whether they ever go to church or say prayers). It's a bluff. So, I see very little problem with the tweets above. They wouldn't make the top 10,000 problems with the events of the past week. Finally:The problem is, of course, how does anyone who doesn't know Paul Ryan personally know if he's not sincere in his thoughts and prayers? Isn't it conceivable that he feels great sympathy for the victims and their families, offers his sympathy, but doesn't believe the proposed gun regulations will make a difference?
Hell, even if he is just not looking for new solutions because of $ from the NRA, that doesn't mean he's not horrified by what happened.
If someone said, 'your thoughts and prayers aren't enough' it would be a different discussion. It's always if you don't see the problem the way we do, gun owners are evil, blah, blah, then you're evil.
Ending the conversation before it starts.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 9, 2017 12:27:59 GMT -5
I'd like to have more of a discussion about something done at the federal level in terms of a database where if you want a gun, you get your license, if something happens say in NY that would disqualify you to holding a gun, it's know throughout the nation. Something that's not intrusive, or threatening, with language that makes it clear to those inclined to think so, that it's a prelude to taking away their guns. Something that just makes the job of enforcing existing regulations of who should or shouldn't have a gun easier to enforce across state lines.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 9, 2017 13:48:17 GMT -5
I'd like to have more of a discussion about something done at the federal level in terms of a database where if you want a gun, you get your license, if something happens say in NY that would disqualify you to holding a gun, it's know throughout the nation. Something that's not intrusive, or threatening, with language that makes it clear to those inclined to think so, that it's a prelude to taking away their guns. Something that just makes the job of enforcing existing regulations of who should or shouldn't have a gun easier to enforce across state lines. Here's a discussion for you. If you're so worried about guns being taken away, let's replace them with thoughts and prayers. Problem solved. You're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 9, 2017 15:39:13 GMT -5
I'd like to have more of a discussion about something done at the federal level in terms of a database where if you want a gun, you get your license, if something happens say in NY that would disqualify you to holding a gun, it's know throughout the nation. Something that's not intrusive, or threatening, with language that makes it clear to those inclined to think so, that it's a prelude to taking away their guns. Something that just makes the job of enforcing existing regulations of who should or shouldn't have a gun easier to enforce across state lines. Here's a discussion for you. If you're so worried about guns being taken away, let's replace them with thoughts and prayers. Problem solved. You're welcome. [ So is this your way of admitting you have nothing to add to the discussion, or what? And nobody can take my guns away as I don’t have any! Unless you count my recordings of Love Gun, a broken Super Soaker, and my thumbs and index fingers.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 9, 2017 18:40:47 GMT -5
But I think you're way off base on what "thoughts and prayers" is. Maybe on occasion it's code as you say, but more often than not--when it comes to public figures--is simple PR. They are expected to say something. For a long time, offering thoughts and prayers met that expectation (and public figures who failed to show sympathy could catch heat for that failure). And frankly, it still does for many people. Maybe not for you, but then you can't speak for everyone, can you? And you can't know who is expressing genuine sympathy and who is full of shit, right? I'll stand my ground on this one. Recall that the first thing I said was that I would welcome and commend genuine thoughts and prayers. So don't put words in my mouth. So, back to the above tweets... Here was Ryan's tweet: You can take issue with Ryan, you can argue that he isn't doing is job, that he is an NRA stooge, but that tweet is fairly benign and directed to his followers on twitter, to his constituents, to the people who support him, no? Or not. You can say I take issue with Ryan. That doesn't make it true. In my post, I referred to thoughts and prayers being blandly offered as a stand-in. And I said they are useless in those cases. But okay. It's benign - which was kind of my point. Benign is cheek-by-jowl with useless. And it's not in his newsletter (or it could be; I don't know). It's on Twitter. Therefore, it's to anyone who reads it. That's what Twitter is. Now look again at Olberman's and Wheaton's tweets. Those are intended to insult and belittle a specific person (in this case, Ryan). They're mean. And let's get clear on something else here, too: Wheaton and Olbermann are public figures. While it's fair to see offers of thoughts and prayers as empty platitudes or worse, isn't it also fair to see criticism of such expressions (from public figures and elected officials) as attention seeking, first and foremost? I mean, if we can assume Ryan doesn't really care about these people, can't we assume the exact same thing about people like Wheaton and Olbermann (especially Olbermann), that they're just using the tragedy and the "thoughts and prayers" stuff to go after people they don't like and (more importantly, imo) get some attention for themselves? You can make that assumption about them, sure. I won't disagree (or agree) - but I don't need to. They're not public servants; if they're attention-seeking, then it's not in place of actually doing a job they've been elected to do. Either way, it wasn't part of my point, so it's not something I need to answer for.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 9, 2017 18:46:44 GMT -5
Hell, even if he is just not looking for new solutions because of $ from the NRA, that doesn't mean he's not horrified by what happened. And that relates to my post... how? He may be horrified, but (like most people, except he's a public servant and elected leader) he's still not doing anything. Again, faith without works. If someone said, 'your thoughts and prayers aren't enough' it would be a different discussion. It's always if you don't see the problem the way we do, gun owners are evil, blah, blah, then you're evil. What? Have that discussion with the people who said that. To lay it on me in this context is specious. Ending the conversation before it starts. That's presumptuous and rude as hell. But yes, you are excused.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 18:54:32 GMT -5
To note, if I am reading Vince correctly, his "ending the conversation before it starts" was not intended as a way of rudely cutting you off.
Rather, it was referring to his previous sentences: "If someone said, 'your thoughts and prayers aren't enough' it would be a different discussion. It's always if you don't see the problem the way we do, gun owners are evil, blah, blah, then you're evil."
In other words, Vince was saying that people who simply assert all gun owners are evil, period, are ending the discussion before it begins.
And, at the same time, he was saying that it is another, different thing to argue that thoughts and prayers are not enough. (If I understand him correctly, he doesn't necessarily disagree with that position.)
At any rate, that is how I read it.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Nov 9, 2017 19:03:05 GMT -5
But I think you're way off base on what "thoughts and prayers" is. Maybe on occasion it's code as you say, but more often than not--when it comes to public figures--is simple PR. They are expected to say something. For a long time, offering thoughts and prayers met that expectation (and public figures who failed to show sympathy could catch heat for that failure). And frankly, it still does for many people. Maybe not for you, but then you can't speak for everyone, can you? And you can't know who is expressing genuine sympathy and who is full of shit, right? I'll stand my ground on this one. Recall that the first thing I said was that I would welcome and commend genuine thoughts and prayers. So don't put words in my mouth. You can take issue with Ryan, you can argue that he isn't doing is job, that he is an NRA stooge, but that tweet is fairly benign and directed to his followers on twitter, to his constituents, to the people who support him, no? Or not. You can say I take issue with Ryan. That doesn't make it true. In my post, I referred to thoughts and prayers being blandly offered as a stand-in. And I said they are useless in those cases. But okay. It's benign - which was kind of my point. Benign is cheek-by-jowl with useless. And it's not in his newsletter. It's on Twitter. Therefore, it's to anyone who reads it. That's what Twitter is. Now look again at Olberman's and Wheaton's tweets. Those are intended to insult and belittle a specific person (in this case, Ryan). They're mean. And let's get clear on something else here, too: Wheaton and Olbermann are public figures. While it's fair to see offers of thoughts and prayers as empty platitudes or worse, isn't it also fair to see criticism of such expressions (from public figures and elected officials) as attention seeking, first and foremost? I mean, if we can assume Ryan doesn't really care about these people, can't we assume the exact same thing about people like Wheaton and Olbermann (especially Olbermann), that they're just using the tragedy and the "thoughts and prayers" stuff to go after people they don't like and (more importantly, imo) get some attention for themselves? You can make that assumption about them, sure. I won't disagree (or agree) - but I don't need to. They're not public servants; if they're attention-seeking, then it's not in place of actually doing a job they've been elected to do. Either way, it wasn't part of my point, so it's not something I need to answer for. All of this. I'm seriously disappointed that we are now comparing the actions of elected officials with celebrities. That said, the celebrities are winning.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Nov 9, 2017 19:09:11 GMT -5
The problem is, of course, how does anyone who doesn't know Paul Ryan personally know if he's not sincere in his thoughts and prayers? Isn't it conceivable that he feels great sympathy for the victims and their families, offers his sympathy, but doesn't believe the proposed gun regulations will make a difference? Unlikely imo, but okay, fine. OMFG are you serious? This is acceptable to you? You actually want to give him credit for being "horrified" in this scenario? By all accounts, most of the GOP don't want a conversation. That's why they get the pushback when they offer their "thoughts and prayers." Mark my words. A week from now NO ONE will be talking about gun control. Same as it ever was.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 9, 2017 19:09:16 GMT -5
To note, if I am reading Vince correctly, his "ending the conversation before it starts" was not intended as a way of rudely cutting you off. Rather, it was referring to his previous sentences: "If someone said, 'your thoughts and prayers aren't enough' it would be a different discussion. It's always if you don't see the problem the way we do, gun owners are evil, blah, blah, then you're evil." In other words, Vince was saying that people who simply assert all gun owners are evil, period, are ending the discussion before it begins. And, at the same time, he was saying that it is another, different thing to argue that thoughts and prayers are not enough. (If I understand him correctly, he doesn't necessarily disagree with that position.) At any rate, that is how I read it. If that's the case, then I'm setting a land-speed record for misreading posts, and I apologise. I would say in my defense that my interpretation was reasonable, and it could have been clearer. But, bottom line, I'd rather have the right understanding, and I'll take the small humiliation associated with it.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 9, 2017 19:10:55 GMT -5
The problem is, of course, how does anyone who doesn't know Paul Ryan personally know if he's not sincere in his thoughts and prayers? Isn't it conceivable that he feels great sympathy for the victims and their families, offers his sympathy, but doesn't believe the proposed gun regulations will make a difference? Unlikely imo, but okay, fine. OMFG are you serious? This is acceptable to you? You actually want to give him credit for being "horrified" in this scenario? By all accounts, most of the GOP don't want a conversation. That's why they get the pushback when they offer their "thoughts and prayers." Mark my words. A week from now NO ONE will be talking about gun control. Same as it ever was. Yep. Why is it always these hammerhead politicians who get the benefit of the doubt, when they give it to absolutely no one?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2017 19:18:38 GMT -5
As I think I've said elsewhere, "thought and prayers" are all fine and well, but if you are an elected representative, I want to see you working towards something better.
As a side note, I personally found "thought and prayers" rather jarring in this particular instance, given that these people were gunned down while in the act of praying. But then, I am an atheist.
I didn't find it offensive, mind you. Just jarring. Cynical atheist me couldn't help but think "a fat lot of good praying did these poor victims."
|
|