Hyperbolic would be an exaggerated response to a claim she actually made.
What he did is make an inflated claim that she never actually made. The clip he shows does not show her saying "Trump caused the hurricanes". But the same people who believe fags cause hurricanes are going to believe that she believes that an election can cause hurricanes.
To be effective hyperbole, it has to be recognizable as hyperbole. Otherwise it's stirringupshitbole.
the only voice we really have is through voting (...) and we voted and it was really startling. You are watching these hurricanes now and it's really hard, especially while promoting this movie, not to feel mother nature's rage, wrath.
I don't think she is saying the hurricanes happened solely because of Trump, but she does think that the election had a significant impact on the weather. She goes, unprompted, directly from talking about the election to talking about the extreme weather. It's obvious that she thinks that there is a link between these two topics. Literally Hitler has a valid point when he is mocking her.
If she had said:
We voted for gay marriage and now we are watching these hurricanes and it's really hard not to feel god's rage.
I don't read it that way. Unless you assume she's a moron, no one would link those two events the way you're representing them. This is what we've got to do: stop taking things like this with a fatuous assumption that she believes the election and the hurricanes are linked. It is a reasonable thing to express lost optimism and the despair at the '16 election seeming to be a missed opportunity to get US environmental policy back on track. That's a perfectly reasonable read of what she said, that doesn't require assumptions about her intelligence.
Yes, some people do believe that sort of thing, which is why televangelists and holy-rollers (who are not morons and thus don't believe it themselves) love to say things like that.
I'm not "letting Lawrence off easy" because I don't think this quote represents any actual broken thought process, and because (at least insofar as the election fucked US enviro policy worse than it already was) I agree with her, generally.
But when someone does say shit of the caliber of your example, I would hope that I'd criticize them for what they actually said.
I would not assume that the speaker is saying "gays cause hurricanes". I would imagine that the person sees gay marriage as yet another example of their perceived slide toward global immorality. If that's how you construct "morality" (that it's ordained by God and God will punish us for being immoral), it's a reasonable thing to think and say.
Unless you assume she's a moron, no one would link those two events the way you're representing them. This is what we've got to do: stop taking things like this with a fatuous assumption that she believes the election and the hurricanes are linked. (...) Yes, some people do believe that sort of thing, which is why televangelists and holy-rollers (who are not morons and thus don't believe it themselves) love to say things like that.
When someone you agree with politically says something retarded, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. The other side actually has some morons who believe in politics-to-weather connections, but thinking, that someone on your side might be like that too, requires "a fatuous assumption". Got it.
I'm not really assuming anything about her. When someone clearly connects one event to another one, we are not assuming that they think that the events are linked. We are deducing that fact.
I don't think what she said was retarded, and if you'd read my response to your question, I said I wouldn't think a person who said what you suggested was saying something retarded.
It's funny that you defend PDP by saying his criticism of her is "hyperbole" but act as though Lawrence must necessarily literally mean the exact words she said.
I don't think what she said was retarded, and if you'd read my response to your question, I said I wouldn't think a person who said what you suggested was saying something retarded.
yeah, yeah. Thinking that they are morons requires "a fatuous assumption", except when you are talking about the people you do not agree with, then you know for a fact that some of them genuinely believe in this sort of stuff and are morons.
It's funny that you defend PDP by saying his criticism of her is "hyperbole" but act as though Lawrence must necessarily literally mean the exact words she said.
It's almost as if one of them was giving a serious interview in a somber tone, while the other one was constantly making jokes and being over the top for comedic effect.
It seems you're reading what I write, but you're not getting the things i've said. It's tedious.
I have told you twice that I would not consider someone making a reciprocal comment such as you suggested to be a moron.
There's a huge difference between "there are morons" and "this person is a moron". The way you ask this makes it seem like you think I am saying that there cannot be any morons.
If you have 33 people, selected at random, there is a 50% chance that two of them will have the same birthday. That doesn't mean that each person has a one-in-30 chance of sharing your birthday.
Your parallel with me not assuming one person is a moron, and therefore most likely didn't mean the literal meaning of the words (because humans with IQs higher than 70 or so communicate with nuance, not strictly literally) is like you insisting that if there's a 50% chance that two in 33 people share a birthday, then it must also be true that for any given person there must be a 1:30 chance they share your birthday.
If you're going to go for a literal read, she does not link the election and the "god is angry" comment at all. She mentions the election, and then says "looking at these hurricanes, bla bla bla wrath bla"
My point is that a literal read makes no sense in the first place.
Maybe that's because I felt the same way. We are on a path toward increasingly volatile weather. Many of us saw the election as a chance to sideline the demagogues who push the anti-science "Everything is Fine!" bullshit. That didn't happen. I'll give her enough credit not to assume that eight months would have been enough to prevent this extraordinary hurricane season, since that would be assuming she's a moron.
But back to the alleged hyperbole: She didn't say that the election, or Trump, caused hurricanes. I don't want to get drawn into a slapfest over the merits of what I think she intended to say. I'm saying that it's about time we stop assuming people that disagree with us are intentionally creating evil.
Like my wife -- if I gripe that she's too aggressive with savings, she goes immediately to "So we should spend everything and not give a fuck about the future?". No, I never said that.
Maybe that's because I felt the same way. We are on a path toward increasingly volatile weather.
Then maybe you should stop feeling and start thinking. 13 years ago we had an unusually bad hurricane season. The "experts" warned us that because of climate change we'd see an increase in the number and power of storms. Then we didn't have a single hurricane make landfall in the US for 12 years.
Everything isn't "fine," but one of the reasons we can't get traction on solutions for climate issues is because of idiocy like this. Some idiot comes up with a Chicken Little doom-and-gloom scenario that is "sure to happen," a bunch of retards jump on that idiots bandwagon, then the nightmare scenario(s) they predict fail to materialize. Between that nonsense and the bulk of the "solutions" to climate change involving giving power to unaccountable bureaucrats or dumping money into slush funds it's a wonder anyone agrees with you.
I'm saying that it's about time we stop assuming people that disagree with us are intentionally creating evil.
I'm sorry, but after two weeks of bullshit about Trump secretly supporting Nazis after he "disavows violence on all sides" that only continues when he specifically denounces white supremacists two days later, I don't feel a lot of sympathy for you or Jennifer Lawrence. I have to preface half of what I say in public by denouncing groups with which I have no affiliation because people are somehow said to be connected to such groups when they suggest anything outside the bounds of what some people think should be the only acceptable opinions. Don't cry when you find those shoes on your feet. Deal with the blisters and learn to walk.
Well to be fair, Richard Spencer has, a few times, said he's not a Nazi. I don't think it's necessarily true that a person who says "I don't support X" must necessarily be telling the truth. I imagine you don't either.
I don't think Trump supports Nazis. But me not thinking that is because it would be a stupid thing to support. It has fuck-all to do with Trump saying no new taxes he doesn't support Nazis.
Taking any politician at their word is bad for business. That includes Hilary, Bernie, Trump, Obama.
And who said anything about "sympathy"? Oh poor Ms. Lawrence? No, that's a fantasy inside your head. I'm going to be that she gives zero fucks for your sympathies or lack(s) thereof.
I trust people by their actions. I don't trust that Trump isn't (ignorantly or unintentionally?) encouraging the extreme alt-right just because when called on the carpet he did what any politician would do: disavow the thing the public wants him to disavow. It has no more rhetorical value than if he'd said "I'm for the things you like! I oppose all the things you hate!"
But I'll let you in on something I don't say very often: While i am convinced that we must take the whole climate business seriously, I'm not convinced it's inevitable. People harp on the data being incontrovertible, and that's fine. It's humanity's ability to create accurate models that I question. But then, I also believe that civilization is a temporary respite from the normal condition of humanity.
"Biology" doesn't cover human culture and human identity very well -
assuming you are talking about transgender people. That's more in the domain of psychology, sociology, and neurology.
We turned wolves into dogs, we send people into space in metal cans, and I'm talking to you through a machine that, as far as I am concerned, might as well be magic.
The world is what we make of it, and trying to confine everything so that it can be 'simple' just makes it way less cool.
This means that PewDiePie is officially a Nazi symphasizer. I can't believe he is now officially using his platform, with over six million subscribers, to spread misinformation brainwashing children with his right wing propoganda.
His entire arguement is invalid as well. If we voted blue for the last half a century and had more faith in science all of these natural disasters would not be happening. We would be living in a world where there is no poverty, no hunger, and transexuals could use any bathroom they want. Also my dad wouldn't have walked out on my mother when I was six. If only we voted for science based governments and got someone like Sanders or Rick Sanchez to be president instead of Orange Hitler Voldemort...
I thought he had 50M+ subscribers. That's what they're really scared of. The dude has more eyeballs than every media outlet combined and they're the most highly coveted demographic.
39 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2017-09-10
Now with added cancer!
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 taterbizkit 2017-09-10
He's an asshole and intentionally misrepresents what people like Lawrence are saying, but this didn't really live up to the headline.
Still a useless fuckwit, though.
1 Bussypostin 2017-09-10
He can piss people off online and provide drama, so still one use left
1 cavides 2017-09-10
He's being hyperbolic, but Lawrence is pretty much an embodiment of some of the popular stereotypes about Hollywood liberals.
1 taterbizkit 2017-09-10
Hyperbolic would be an exaggerated response to a claim she actually made.
What he did is make an inflated claim that she never actually made. The clip he shows does not show her saying "Trump caused the hurricanes". But the same people who believe fags cause hurricanes are going to believe that she believes that an election can cause hurricanes.
To be effective hyperbole, it has to be recognizable as hyperbole. Otherwise it's stirringupshitbole.
1 cavides 2017-09-10
the dumb blonde:
I don't think she is saying the hurricanes happened solely because of Trump, but she does think that the election had a significant impact on the weather. She goes, unprompted, directly from talking about the election to talking about the extreme weather. It's obvious that she thinks that there is a link between these two topics. Literally Hitler has a valid point when he is mocking her.
If she had said:
would you let her off the hook so easily?
1 taterbizkit 2017-09-10
I don't read it that way. Unless you assume she's a moron, no one would link those two events the way you're representing them. This is what we've got to do: stop taking things like this with a fatuous assumption that she believes the election and the hurricanes are linked. It is a reasonable thing to express lost optimism and the despair at the '16 election seeming to be a missed opportunity to get US environmental policy back on track. That's a perfectly reasonable read of what she said, that doesn't require assumptions about her intelligence.
Yes, some people do believe that sort of thing, which is why televangelists and holy-rollers (who are not morons and thus don't believe it themselves) love to say things like that.
I'm not "letting Lawrence off easy" because I don't think this quote represents any actual broken thought process, and because (at least insofar as the election fucked US enviro policy worse than it already was) I agree with her, generally.
But when someone does say shit of the caliber of your example, I would hope that I'd criticize them for what they actually said.
I would not assume that the speaker is saying "gays cause hurricanes". I would imagine that the person sees gay marriage as yet another example of their perceived slide toward global immorality. If that's how you construct "morality" (that it's ordained by God and God will punish us for being immoral), it's a reasonable thing to think and say.
1 cavides 2017-09-10
When someone you agree with politically says something retarded, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. The other side actually has some morons who believe in politics-to-weather connections, but thinking, that someone on your side might be like that too, requires "a fatuous assumption". Got it.
I'm not really assuming anything about her. When someone clearly connects one event to another one, we are not assuming that they think that the events are linked. We are deducing that fact.
1 taterbizkit 2017-09-10
I don't think what she said was retarded, and if you'd read my response to your question, I said I wouldn't think a person who said what you suggested was saying something retarded.
It's funny that you defend PDP by saying his criticism of her is "hyperbole" but act as though Lawrence must necessarily literally mean the exact words she said.
1 cavides 2017-09-10
yeah, yeah. Thinking that they are morons requires "a fatuous assumption", except when you are talking about the people you do not agree with, then you know for a fact that some of them genuinely believe in this sort of stuff and are morons.
It's almost as if one of them was giving a serious interview in a somber tone, while the other one was constantly making jokes and being over the top for comedic effect.
1 taterbizkit 2017-09-10
It seems you're reading what I write, but you're not getting the things i've said. It's tedious.
I have told you twice that I would not consider someone making a reciprocal comment such as you suggested to be a moron.
There's a huge difference between "there are morons" and "this person is a moron". The way you ask this makes it seem like you think I am saying that there cannot be any morons.
If you have 33 people, selected at random, there is a 50% chance that two of them will have the same birthday. That doesn't mean that each person has a one-in-30 chance of sharing your birthday.
Your parallel with me not assuming one person is a moron, and therefore most likely didn't mean the literal meaning of the words (because humans with IQs higher than 70 or so communicate with nuance, not strictly literally) is like you insisting that if there's a 50% chance that two in 33 people share a birthday, then it must also be true that for any given person there must be a 1:30 chance they share your birthday.
1 jubbergun 2017-09-10
Really? What is left out of that clip that changes the context of what she's saying? It's literally "you voted wrong and now you're being punished."
1 taterbizkit 2017-09-10
If you're going to go for a literal read, she does not link the election and the "god is angry" comment at all. She mentions the election, and then says "looking at these hurricanes, bla bla bla wrath bla"
My point is that a literal read makes no sense in the first place.
Maybe that's because I felt the same way. We are on a path toward increasingly volatile weather. Many of us saw the election as a chance to sideline the demagogues who push the anti-science "Everything is Fine!" bullshit. That didn't happen. I'll give her enough credit not to assume that eight months would have been enough to prevent this extraordinary hurricane season, since that would be assuming she's a moron.
But back to the alleged hyperbole: She didn't say that the election, or Trump, caused hurricanes. I don't want to get drawn into a slapfest over the merits of what I think she intended to say. I'm saying that it's about time we stop assuming people that disagree with us are intentionally creating evil.
Like my wife -- if I gripe that she's too aggressive with savings, she goes immediately to "So we should spend everything and not give a fuck about the future?". No, I never said that.
1 jubbergun 2017-09-10
Then maybe you should stop feeling and start thinking. 13 years ago we had an unusually bad hurricane season. The "experts" warned us that because of climate change we'd see an increase in the number and power of storms. Then we didn't have a single hurricane make landfall in the US for 12 years.
Everything isn't "fine," but one of the reasons we can't get traction on solutions for climate issues is because of idiocy like this. Some idiot comes up with a Chicken Little doom-and-gloom scenario that is "sure to happen," a bunch of retards jump on that idiots bandwagon, then the nightmare scenario(s) they predict fail to materialize. Between that nonsense and the bulk of the "solutions" to climate change involving giving power to unaccountable bureaucrats or dumping money into slush funds it's a wonder anyone agrees with you.
I'm sorry, but after two weeks of bullshit about Trump secretly supporting Nazis after he "disavows violence on all sides" that only continues when he specifically denounces white supremacists two days later, I don't feel a lot of sympathy for you or Jennifer Lawrence. I have to preface half of what I say in public by denouncing groups with which I have no affiliation because people are somehow said to be connected to such groups when they suggest anything outside the bounds of what some people think should be the only acceptable opinions. Don't cry when you find those shoes on your feet. Deal with the blisters and learn to walk.
1 taterbizkit 2017-09-10
Well to be fair, Richard Spencer has, a few times, said he's not a Nazi. I don't think it's necessarily true that a person who says "I don't support X" must necessarily be telling the truth. I imagine you don't either.
I don't think Trump supports Nazis. But me not thinking that is because it would be a stupid thing to support. It has fuck-all to do with Trump saying
no new taxeshe doesn't support Nazis.Taking any politician at their word is bad for business. That includes Hilary, Bernie, Trump, Obama.
And who said anything about "sympathy"? Oh poor Ms. Lawrence? No, that's a fantasy inside your head. I'm going to be that she gives zero fucks for your sympathies or lack(s) thereof.
I trust people by their actions. I don't trust that Trump isn't (ignorantly or unintentionally?) encouraging the extreme alt-right just because when called on the carpet he did what any politician would do: disavow the thing the public wants him to disavow. It has no more rhetorical value than if he'd said "I'm for the things you like! I oppose all the things you hate!"
But I'll let you in on something I don't say very often: While i am convinced that we must take the whole climate business seriously, I'm not convinced it's inevitable. People harp on the data being incontrovertible, and that's fine. It's humanity's ability to create accurate models that I question. But then, I also believe that civilization is a temporary respite from the normal condition of humanity.
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-09-10
Conservatives have a problem with climate, dems with biology. I don't think a particular party has full faith in science.
1 Lieutenant_Rans 2017-09-10
"Biology" doesn't cover human culture and human identity very well - assuming you are talking about transgender people. That's more in the domain of psychology, sociology, and neurology.
1 do0rkn0b 2017-09-10
Why you worry about silly things? World is very simple place. Has two things: people with penis and people with no penis.
1 Lieutenant_Rans 2017-09-10
We turned wolves into dogs, we send people into space in metal cans, and I'm talking to you through a machine that, as far as I am concerned, might as well be magic.
The world is what we make of it, and trying to confine everything so that it can be 'simple' just makes it way less cool.
1 SethRichOrDieTryin 2017-09-10
Idk if someone without a penis can really be described as a person.
1 do0rkn0b 2017-09-10
Tru
1 taterbizkit 2017-09-10
People in general don't like science, because it is incompatible with rash conclusions and shoot-first-ask-later thinking.
But "dems have a problem with biology"...
Yeah, OK. I guess that agenda isn't going to push itself. Carry on.
1 Kekistanian9000 2017-09-10
It's incompatible with any agenda is what I'm saying.
1 taterbizkit 2017-09-10
It's compatible with agendas that don't involve biology.
1 AMD_2017 2017-09-10
We belive in climate change, just not (((climate change))).
1 buttermyself 2017-09-10
Politics aside, this fucking tard is unwatchable.
1 TheVirtueSignal 2017-09-10
This means that PewDiePie is officially a Nazi symphasizer. I can't believe he is now officially using his platform, with over six million subscribers, to spread misinformation brainwashing children with his right wing propoganda.
His entire arguement is invalid as well. If we voted blue for the last half a century and had more faith in science all of these natural disasters would not be happening. We would be living in a world where there is no poverty, no hunger, and transexuals could use any bathroom they want. Also my dad wouldn't have walked out on my mother when I was six. If only we voted for science based governments and got someone like Sanders or Rick Sanchez to be president instead of Orange Hitler Voldemort...
1 191132 2017-09-10
this is great satire. you should write for video games
1 grungebot5000 2017-09-10
sunset overdrive 2:
1 cuteman 2017-09-10
I thought he had 50M+ subscribers. That's what they're really scared of. The dude has more eyeballs than every media outlet combined and they're the most highly coveted demographic.
1 grungebot5000 2017-09-10
yeah that's over 6 million learn to red
1 cuteman 2017-09-10
Yeah in the same way 1 is similar to 10.
Just an order of magnitude off equaling tens of millions in inconsistency. No big deal.
1 grungebot5000 2017-09-10
बo पou even know what "six million" mऊans? f५८king casuक्l
1 wolfsktaag 2017-09-10
why did we teach niggers how to write
1 Gladbach10 2017-09-10
was it the dad walking out on his mother part that gave it away?
1 shitpost953 2017-09-10
The meme has been magicked... he is truly out of ideas.
1 SperglockHolmes 2017-09-10
W O K E
O
K
E
1 Bussypostin 2017-09-10
GONALD GUMPH
1 glmox 2017-09-10
no fucking way am i actually watching pewdiepie video