How long before use of the word "triggered" is on the same level as a Godwin's Law violation? It's already up there with "TL;DR" as the lazy cop-out in countless internet threads. The dumbest use of it so far is when I saw someone sum up a full-on flame war by saying that the guy who got angry was "triggered by just one word" - which was beyond ****ing dumb because the one word that "triggered" this guy was a certain racial slur (one which happens to sound pretty similar to "triggered"...) being used to describe him several times in the space of a few sentences. Since I'm on the subject, I'll tear down that cornerstone of millennial-bashing that is no generation before theirs were "triggered" - a notion that is rendered complete bollocks by the fact the Express has a microscopic readership in the 15-34 demographic, yet their readership get whipped into a Two Minutes Hate on average twice a week.
Actually, if you write reams of sh*te with little relevant content, tl;dr is what you deserve. The Internet forum tradition of keeping your postings short enough to allow reasonable reply goes back decades.
You complain of a particular attitude yet your post contains most if not all the traits you complain about. It doesn't make for a decent discussion. You refer to people as morons yet in another sentence complain they insult those who disagree with them. It reminds me of the bizarreness of Trump demanding an apology from an actor who criticised him...Trump has raised similar complaints to you yet bitches and moans when someone takes up an argument with him. People are trying to debate on here. Me hating everything Trump is and you thinking hr is good shouldn't mean you are not able to discuss it with me.
More often than not people just post it as a trolling device. For example, one time I posted a couple of medium-length paragraphs to completely dismantle someone's inane gibberish, and they just responded "TL;DR" in that typical internet habit of having nothing to say but having to post something anyway.
Bear in mind that a screenful of text (24 lines) can be too much for many of the morons with Internet access nowadays to mentally process. The Usenet tradition comes from text-based readers (24 lines x 80 chars etc) . So reams of screen pages used to be difficult to follow. More so if posters just verbatim replied (each "level" of reply would be prefixed with ">" , so text prefixed with ">>>>>" meant the text came from a text in a message posted FIVE messages earlier) .
Is it art imitating life, or vice-versa, in 2016 (I could not tell if Whoopi Goldberg et al were speaking for themselves or on behalf of the *** regarding Trump) .
Just when you thought Trump apologists couldn't spout any more garbage, now they're trying to claim the reason they perform Nazi salutes is because of intolerance from the left. In other words they're now using the defence of the wife beater: "Look what YOU made me do." - or, calling it what it is, the criminal acting as if they are the victim.
About as palatable as the hillary supporter stood in front of trump tower holding a large placard reading, "RAPE MELIANA". The writing off of left wing intolerance as the cause of right wing behaviour by the way, is exactly the criticism and observation I made above. People tell you what their grievance is, and you simply tell them that that's "garbage". It's this attitude, and the attitude of shoving your * views down everyone's throat and not giving them an option of commenting, that is the cause of antipathy, whether you regard that as, "garbage" or not. I'm a 'trump supporter' by the way, and like half of america, I have no need to apologise for it. * EDIT : "your" is a reference not to HBIC inidividually/personally. Apologies for any offence or misunderstanding.
No, when people try and use blatant crybully tactics to justify their behaviour I describe it as exactly what it is: complete and utter garbage. Because that's what it is. It's funny how you accuse me of having an attitude of shoving my views down everyone's throat and not giving them the option of commenting - right before you do the exact same thing, and it's hardly the first time you've been guilty of doing that in the last couple of pages of this thread either.
Out of interest HBIC, how did you (and this time I am referring to you individually !), reach the conclusion that these peoples' claims about what had motivated them were "garbage" ? How were you able to ascertain the cause of their behaviour and sentiments with such certainty, as to be able to conclude that the reason that they gave themselves was not true ? And what were the actual causes that you were able to ascertain ?
I've quite clearly stated why their claims are garbage on two occasions: because it's blatant crybully behaviour - something that Trump himself is guilty of.
I can't normally stand this guy, and I think that most of what he says is garbage, but from aroun 3.15 on here, I think he gets it absoloutely spot on : I think that what he identifies is not only arguably the biggest problem with and threat to our society, but - as he says - one of the major causes of anger and disaffection that leads to a result like trump winning the election.
