Tanoomba's Toxic Tank of Traducement

fanaskin said:

you literally miss basic facts and history and stuff, you're like an alzheimers patient everytime I converse with you, nothing learned, nothing remembered.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I've heard this before. And yet, if I ask you to name ONE SINGLE FACT I've missed you won't be able to do it, because it's a lie and all you're apparently capable of is spouting hollow rhetoric and not backing up a single thing you say.

fanaskin said:

You has outsized influence peddling harmful ideology, why do you make this so complicated when it's rather simple?

Click to expand...

Make a statement, BACK IT UP. That's the definition of simplicity, and yet you are incapable of grasping this concept. WHAT "harmful ideology" is Sarkeesian peddling? WHY is it harmful? HOW is she pushing post-modernism? If she actually does these things, these are easy questions to answer and yet you flounder and flop, you duck and dodge, you go off on tangent after tangent and go well out of your way to avoid supporting anything you say.

NONE of your statements are self-evident, and you have made ZERO effort to support a single thing you've said. Your entire argument begins and ends with "She's a villain". Have you seriously never had a discussion with someone who disagreed with you before? Have you never been asked to back up a claim before?

Kiroy said:

He is the foh version of the incredible hulk. Any logic and common sense aimed towards him only acts to make him more retarded.

Click to expand...

"That's our story, and we're sticking to it!"

fanaskin said:

inter sectional post modern critical theory style feminism, are you like literally brain damaged?

Click to expand...

In what world do you live in where this is an explanation of ANYTHING?

By the way, if all you're going to do is throw buzz words at me, then you sure as hell had better not start accusing ME of resorting to semantics arguments. You literally threw a pile of words at me that didn't even form a sentence, much less a coherent thought. All I can do is look at what these words mean.

in·ter·sec·tion·al·i·ty
ˌin(t)ərsekSHəˈnalədē/
noun
the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage.
"through an awareness of intersectionality, we can better acknowledge and ground the differences among us"

Click to expand...

post·mod·ern·ism
ˌpōs(t)ˈmädərnˌizəm/
noun
noun: post-modernism
a late-20th-century style and concept in the arts, architecture, and criticism that represents a departure from modernism and has at its heart a general distrust of grand theories and ideologies as well as a problematical relationship with any notion of “art.”.

Click to expand...

crit·i·cal the·o·ry
noun
a philosophical approach to culture, and especially to literature, that seeks to confront the social, historical, and ideological forces and structures that produce and constrain it. The term is applied particularly to the work of the Frankfurt School.

Click to expand...

fem·i·nism
ˈfeməˌnizəm/
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.
synonyms: the women's movement, the feminist movement, women's liberation, female emancipation, women's rights;
informalwomen's lib
"a longtime advocate of feminism"

Click to expand...

What's the problem? No, seriously: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

Listen, Fana. You're tossing around a bunch of labels here, some of which may not even apply (see: post-modernist), and NONE of which are de facto associated with causing harm. At least when the anti-Trump crowd use labels in lieu of actual arguments, THEY USE PEJORATIVE LABELS. You basically went from "She's a villain" to "She's a villain because (string of labels that in no way imply villainy)". FFS, Fana, the law of averages says that by now you should have actually addressed, if even by accident, something she actually said at some point, but you've gone very much out of your way to avoid mentioning her actual views at all. You have put a LOT of effort into being exceptionally lazy.

fanaskin said:

Those are their buzzwords lawl, are you literally denying the existence of these idea's though? it's literally everywhere, the ideology is in the mainstream, FFS anita was saying "YAY IT"S AT THE OSCARS YAY"

AND YOU STILL DENY IT EXISTS.

Click to expand...

What? I didn't deny they exist. I provided definitions for every single one, FFS. Clearly I am capable of acknowledging them. What I denied was that these labels describe beliefs that are inherently harmful. You are under the false assumption that labels = arguments. They don't.

fanaskin said:

Those are the labels they use themselves you fucking moron of the highest order, i'm not boxing them in.

Click to expand...

Right. Again, I ask: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

fanaskin said:

Their shit isn't very coherent I agree, that's why it's so lulzy to expose the illogic of the stupid shit they believe, and why like the retard you are you get shit on trying to defend it.

Click to expand...

You didn't expose ANY "illogic" at all, dude. You haven't said a single word about what "they" believe, and I haven't said a single word defending it. You must be having an entirely different conversation in your head because you clearly have no idea what's going on here.

fanaskin said:

Notice Noam chomsky said (in the things you don't watch because you purposefully stay willfully ignorant) that alot of their shit is incoherent and illogical.

Click to expand...

No, Noam wasn't talking about them specifically. It's up to YOU to show that what he describes applies to them, and that they are causing harm. Again (again), IT IS NOT A GIVEN.