TIME Magazine is fake news

[Frankie²]

what does this mean, it literally makes no loving sense.

(((i think))) what ike is saying is that no one takes dues seriously because the only time he posts is to start stuff or to tell someone to shut up because he doesnt like what theyre saying

[Ad Bot]

[IkeTheGeneric]

You think I give a forget about you taking me seriously?

Yes. You're still here, continuing to do whatever this is.

[IkeTheGeneric]

what does this mean, it literally makes no loving sense.

It's literally loving common sense. Nobody wants to get caught in the stuffty situation of taking something seriously and then becoming the butt of a stupid joke. Nobody wants to put effort into any discourse only to have the other side devolve to calling them a handicap and then stuffposting. This results in everyone either ignoring Deus Ex or not taking him seriously, while he continues to whine about this endlessly.

This is legitimately one of the easiest forum etiquettes to follow

[Ceist]

It's literally loving common sense. Nobody wants to get caught in the stuffty situation of taking something seriously and then becoming the butt of a stupid joke. Nobody wants to put effort into any discourse only to have the other side devolve to calling them a handicap and then stuffposting.

This results in everyone either ignoring Deus Ex or not taking him seriously, while he continues to whine about this endlessly.

So this is what meaning of "Bad Faith" is? How the hell could I have deduced that "Bad Faith" posting is this?
I remember you calling me out for it in the Tentacion thread. Sounds silly considering I don't post often.

[IkeTheGeneric]

So this is what meaning of "Bad Faith" is?

Posting in bad faith is posting in a way that isn't beneficial or productive to a meaningful outcome to a discussion or thread, but rather "In bad faith", either to troll, undermine someone you don't like, bait a response, spam or stuff like that. Your argument with Hootaloo wasn't in good faith and that was pretty clear from the start. It's increasingly obvious when someone's only here to insult or belittle people.

I call people out for posting in bad faith because there is literally no winning move in responding to someone posting in bad faith. There is no point in putting effort into a response if the other dude can just double down or irony or sarcasm to just make you look stupid. There is no point in trying to have an "Intelligent discussion" with Deus Ex if you begin to make a fair point and he just tells you to shut up and calls you a name.

Maybe it would have been fair game if he wasn't such a loving baby about it, but here we are.

[Mr. Bones]

literally no you though
I've already stated before all of you are a bunch of sheepy smooth brains and I don't trust any of you to carry any kind of salient conversation, much less do anything other than try to gangbang me with your bullstuff instead of having anything worth note to say

You think I give a forget about you taking me seriously? I don't take any of you seriously because you guys are legit handicapped

Why are you posting here then? You clearly want people to rattle their sticks with you and agree with you lol

[Chris72003]

Radical Centrists are both tribal and cucks.

says the person with an avatar i cant even tell what it is.......

this is an insult? sounds more like you're actually a conservative

pfff... cant even see anything out of his POV.....
take a walk in someone elses shoes lol............

[Weaponized Autism]

You're right let's all just stfu about the things we don't like >:( the world will be a better place when criticism is nonexistent

lv100 strawman

[Conan]

put it this way: if time had a cover showing hillary and some islamic terrorist looking dude as their headline image for the benghazi attack, would you be outraged to find out the “terrorist” on the cover was actually just a random dude doing dress up

[King Tøny]

IN this thread.

time was caught for not investigating, fact checking and just wanted to publish a narrative regardless if it is true or not.


Everyone else "oh well I'm sure it's still happening everywhere else why does it matter this was fake"

[King Tøny]

You're the same kind of people that jizz over the "we can do it" famous poster.

Despite the fact the person who took the photo for the poster quit her factory job because it was too hard for her.

Shows how much "we can do it"


It's a loving political agenda built on lies and this time magazine cover is no different.

[Ipquarx]

Everyone else "oh well I'm sure it's still happening everywhere else why does it matter this was fake"

just in case someone actually doesn't know and believes the troll

it did happen, and is still happening (and i justify this by pointing out that as of 4 days ago the government itself claims only around 1 in 5 children have been re-united)

the cover is a depiction of the lack of emotion and remorse he has for the decision he made, they never intended for that exact child to be some sort of martyr and as far as i'm aware they never claimed that that exact child was taken away

why?

because the message isn't 'this exact kid got taken away and is sad look how sad they are', it's the lack of emotion and remorse Donald had for his decision. It could be any crying kid there and the message would be the same

[Deus Ex]

just in case someone actually doesn't know and believes the troll

it did happen, and is still happening (and i justify this by pointing out that as of 4 days ago the government itself claims only around 1 in 5 children have been re-united)

the cover is a depiction of the lack of emotion and remorse he has for the decision he made, they never intended for that exact child to be some sort of martyr and as far as i'm aware they never claimed that that exact child was taken away

why?

because the message isn't 'this exact kid got taken away and is sad look how sad they are', it's the lack of emotion and remorse Donald had for his decision. It could be any crying kid there and the message would be the same

What decision? To uphold the same laws Obama and Clinton did? I like how no one gave a stuff about this up until the Democrats needed a hail mary issue to try to boost their chances at the midterm elections. Literally no one gave one single forget during the Clinton or Obama years but now we need an issue to try to push so let's pretend like we give a stuff and hopefully these handicaps vote for us so we can go back to ignoring the border

Even while they push the issue they offer no solution other than trying to make Annoying Orange sign an executive order instead of doing their jobs and writing some laws, it's ridiculous for you to even try to put any amount of blame on Annoying Orange for kids being separated by immigration. And even if it was his fault, there's one simple fix to prevent people losing their kids at the border: don't loving come over here illegally. It's that simple. If you enter this country with no documentation you forfeit your rights to be with your kid until you're both deported to a country that has documentation of you two being related. What the forget do you think should happen? Kids should just be given to adults who say they're related?

"That's my kid"

"okay here u go"

the forget?

[Drydess]

the difference between what obama did between the Annoying Orange-era zero tolerance policy is that the parents were notified of all the sufficient information to keep in contact with their kid, while nowadays that's not the case
that's not to say i don't see your point. arguments like this that'll go on forever are the sort of stuff that made politicians into the jokes they are today

[Ipquarx]

What decision? To uphold the same laws Obama and Clinton did?

This is a strawman in more than one regard. First off, did I defend it in any context? No. It's indefensible in any context. Second, Donald had the policy changed from one that "occasionally" (I really do wish I had actual statistics but apparently the Obama administration didn't keep notes. This is a quote from the co-director of Comparative Immigration Studies) separated families to a zero-tolerance policy that always separated them.

And this could easily be hearsay but I've heard around that the reason it was never focused on a great deal before was because the kids were allegedly never kept for this long. Either way, I wish I had known about it earlier.

There were several absolutely inexcusable things that happened in his transition from 'occasionally' to 'always.'

First, the consequences of this action were never considered. The camps and cages they kept the children in, and the disgusting conditions those entailed was one of those consequences. Storing multiple thousand children away from their parents is a hell of a lot different than tens or a couple hundred. (Again I can't find exact statistics, but 1-10% seems reasonable)

There are also other consequences, like for example how the kids are to get reunited. Last I heard the literal only way they have of identifying the kids is a wrist bracelet. In small numbers sure, that can work, but on the scale that ICE implemented it simply does not work. There's too many to keep track of when some of the kids will inevitably find a way to rip or tear it off. Kids will get lost and on a fundamentally human level that is unacceptable. Even if the parents didn't have American values in mind, taking that out on the children is as immoral, unamerican, and unchristian as it gets.

Then there's the remorse aspect of this: He showed absolutely no remorse for this policy and the disastrous consequences it had. Instead of working to make things right he repeatedly denied and shifted blame, and when he finally did undo the policy via executive order the damage was already done. There hasn't been any signs of him showing any emotional response or remorse for what happened.