USA Politics

[Vaenyr]

@Jer, again, have you watched any of the other videos? The vendor doesn't engage in any of the conversations because he just wants to work. He wants the mad man to go away and dismisses him every single time. There is no logical reason to give credence to Seldowitz's wildly racist remarks and with the context of the multiple videos the likeliest and most reasonable explanation is racism, not the vendor somehow having expressed pro-Hamas sentiments. When would he have done that? During work, to random people? Occam's razor and all that, your take is nonsensical.

As for Phillips, nothing I've seen from him changes my mind in any way: The man has no shot at being close to getting to the presidency and anyone who vote's for him throws away their vote for no reason.

 

[Jer]

@Jer, again, have you watched any of the other videos?

Yes, of course I have. Have you read the articles that cover Seldowitz‘s description of how the whole thing started, like the Times piece? Have you read the ones that cover the vendor’s deflections when asked if Seldowitz‘s account is accurate? Either you haven’t, or your brain shut down and you applied victim/oppressor caricatures to the two men as soon as Seldowitz said something foul.

The vendor doesn't engage in any of the conversations because he just wants to work. He wants the mad man to go away and dismisses him every single time.

Of course he doesn’t by the time he starts recording them. Seldowitz has already repeatedly harassed him before the recordings ever begin. Once he’s being harassed he just wants it to stop, understandably. That doesn’t tell you anything at all about how the harassment started.

There is no logical reason to give credence to Seldowitz's wildly racist remarks

Do you actually read anything, or just skim until you see a trigger word and then assume the rest? No one has suggested that Seldowitz's inflammatory remarks should be given credence, just that his account of what set him off on his inexcusable tirade should be considered seriously.

with the context of the multiple videos the likeliest and most reasonable explanation is racism, not the vendor somehow having expressed pro-Hamas sentiments. When would he have done that? During work, to random people? Occam's razor and all that, your take is nonsensical.

Now I’m certain you don’t actually read things in full. This has already been addressed multiple times. Seldowitz’s account is that he made small talk with the vendor, asked him where he was from (Egypt), asked him what he thought about the Gaza conflict, and when the vendor expressed support for Hamas, Seldowitz asked him if he really thought the butchering of civilians and other tactics used on October 7 were justified and the guy said yes, 100%. This was the trigger for Seldowitz to go on his inexcusable weeks-long harassment campaign against this one specific vendor. While it’s a wildly disproportionate response, it’s a credible explanation for how things kicked off, and explains why Seldowitz focuses on what he sees as the shitty aspects of the things Hamas stands for while he’s harassing the guy. You also ignored how the vendor won’t directly deny Seldowitz‘s account of how things kicked off. Why is that? It should be easy for the vendor to deny if it’s not true, but he just deflects when asked.

If we go with your “he’s just racist” theory, then why did he fixate on this one vendor when so many other vendors aren’t white? Why didn’t he go off on other random non-white people? Why isn’t there a broader history of this behavior if he’s so unhinged that he’d go on a weeks-long harassment crusade against a completely random person based solely on their race? Sorry, but your take is nonsensical. Occam’s Razor and all that.

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall, because you don’t actually consider the counterpoint and respond to the details, you just make up a caricature in your head of what you assume the person meant and then respond to that assumption instead, along with a hefty dose of posturing to signal your supposed virtue. It’s really exhausting and frankly doesn’t reflect well on you.

 

[____no5]

@Jer, again, have you watched any of the other videos? The vendor doesn't engage in any of the conversations because he just wants to work. He wants the mad man to go away and dismisses him every single time.

The vendor started to record the psycho after an x number of harassments. Of course he doesn't say anything that could put him in trouble. And we don't know what has been said before the recordings but quite possibly they had a conversation where the vendor hinted or admitted that Hamas is doing the right thing or the psycho understood it that way and thought it would be good to start harassing him.

Though now tI just remembered that there's another video of him harassing Russian women who work in the embassy calling them whores etc., and I'm sure they didn't say anything to provoke him.
Thus it's possible the man is a genuine psycho that harassed the vendor just because he's Arab /muslim and without any other provocation.

@Jer are you aware of that video? Search it. I think it's safely to say that the guy is not well mentally and could have done this to the vendor just because of his colour.

 

[Vaenyr]

Yes, of course I have. Have you read the articles that cover Seldowitz‘s description of how the whole thing started, like the Times piece? Have you read the ones that cover the vendor’s deflections when asked if Seldowitz‘s account is accurate? Either you haven’t, or your brain shut down and you applied victim/oppressor caricatures to the two men as soon as Seldowitz said something foul.

Oh, aren't you adorable lol

Of course he doesn’t by the time he starts recording them. Seldowitz has already repeatedly harassed him before the recordings ever begin. Once he’s being harassed he just wants it to stop, understandably. That doesn’t tell you anything at all about how the harassment started.

So far, so good.

Do you actually read anything, or just skim until you see a trigger word and then assume the rest? No one has suggested that Seldowitz's inflammatory remarks should be given credence, just that his account of what set him off on his inexcusable tirade should be considered seriously.

I do read your comments, do you read mine? Because I did not say anything close to the bolded; I simply disagree heavily with the "should be considered seriously". Why should it? This notion that every single opinion is worth hearing is idiotic. You go listen to his account and consider it seriously, I won't do such thing because there's no point.

Now I’m certain you don’t actually read things in full. This has already been addressed multiple times. Seldowitz’s account is that he made small talk with the vendor, asked him where he was from (Egypt), asked him what he thought about the Gaza conflict, and when the vendor expressed support for Hamas, Seldowitz asked him if he really thought the butchering of civilians and other tactics used on October 7 were justified and the guy said yes, 100%. This was the trigger for Seldowitz to go on his inexcusable weeks-long harassment campaign against this one specific vendor. While it’s a wildly disproportionate response, it’s a credible explanation for how things kicked off, and explains why Seldowitz focuses on what he sees as the shitty aspects of the things Hamas stands for while he’s harassing the guy. You also ignored how the vendor won’t directly deny Seldowitz‘s account of how things kicked off. Why is that? It should be easy for the vendor to deny if it’s not true, but he just deflects when asked.

Not only did I not ignore the bolded, I specifically addressed that point. I thought I was the one not reading things in full. You don't entertain the mad ramblings of a person that harasses you for weeks. The vendor is just trying to get rid of him so that he can work in peace. If you think Seldowitz would stop if the vendor said "I don't support Hamas" then you're simply delusional. Seldowitz is unhinged and literally giggles while attacking the faith of the vendor. I'm sorry, but I do not trust Seldowitz and his account, whatsoever. He does not behave like a well adjusted adult individual so forgive me if the most obvious and reasonoble stance for me is to not consider the insane ramblings of a wildly racist individual.

If we go with your “he’s just racist” theory, then why did he fixate on this one vendor when so many other vendors aren’t white? Why didn’t he go off on other random non-white people? Why isn’t there a broader history of this behavior if he’s so unhinged that he’d go on a weeks-long harassment crusade against a completely random person based solely on their race? Sorry, but your take is nonsensical. Occam’s Razor and all that.

You are aware that racist people don't necessarily attack every single person, right? Do you understand how bullies operate? How they usually hyper-fixate on one individual who they deem weaker and thus see as easy prey? Who's to say that he hasn't harassed others as well? Maybe we'll see more videos of his in the future. Maybe the vendor is a moron and would publicly state support for Hamas, but I very severely doubt that. Don't forget that in the current discourse it's not uncommon for people who even dare to suggest that the IDF's actions are monstrous and who think that Palestinians shouldn't be slaughtered are routinely called antisemetic and Hamas-supporters. Use your goddamn brain for once.

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall, because you don’t actually consider the counterpoint and respond to the details, you just make up a caricature in your head of what you assume the person meant and then respond to that assumption instead, along with a hefty dose of posturing to signal your supposed virtue. It’s really exhausting and frankly doesn’t reflect well on you.

Feel free to ignore me then, because we very clearly will never agree on anything regarding politics. I directly respond to your points and can just as easily claim that you are the one who ignores everything. Or did you conveniently forget the last discussion we had in this thread, where I responded to every single one of your points, provided links that supported my arguments for any position that wasn't subjective, provided links that directly disproved some of the incorrect information you claimed; then took a page out of your book and asked you to provide sources and evidence, like you did before, yet you ignored everything and didn't engage at all. Absolute clown behavior. But have fun with the continuing ad hominems and strawmen, after all you seemingly don't have anything but fallacies and buzzwords at your disposal.

Again, feel free to ignore me but I will continue pushing back and calling you out when I see some of your ridiculous takes or outright wrong information like the previous time.

The vendor started to record the psycho after an x number of harassments. Of course he doesn't say anything that could put him in trouble. And we don't know what has been said before the recordings but quite possibly they had a conversation where the vendor hinted or admitted that Hamas is doing the right thing or the psycho understood it that way and thought it would be good to start harassing him.

Though now tI just remembered that there's another video of him harassing Russian women who work in the embassy calling them whores etc., and I'm sure they didn't say anything to provoke him.
Thus it's possible the man is a genuine psycho that harassed the vendor just because he's Arab /muslim and without any other provocation.

@Jer are you aware of that video? Search it. I think it's safely to say that the guy is not well mentally and could have done this to the vendor just because of his colour.

You are correct that we don't know how exactly this all started and that there is the possibility that the vendor provoked the situation in some way. At the same time, vendors aren't typically known for loudly proclaiming their opinions, especially not political views. It would be even stupider for him to openly show support for terrorists on the matter of the current controversial topic that has seen a bunch of people losing their jobs even when providing rather nuanced takes. Again, the vendor might be a moron, but currently the only person who claims this version of events is Seldowitz and as his behavior has shown he is a deeply unserious person and no one in their right mind should consider his account unless witnesses can corroborate that.

 

[Jer]

No one has suggested that Seldowitz's inflammatory remarks should be given credence

I do read your comments, do you read mine? Because I did not say anything close to the bolded

Let’s review:

There is no logical reason to give credence to Seldowitz's wildly racist remarks

So, you did in fact imply that I was saying his inflammatory remarks should be given credence, which I never did. I mean, you’re ignoring shit that was said in the very post you’re responding to, and conveniently ignoring shit you’ve said in your own most recent post too. Because you’re not trying to have an actual conversation, you’re trying to pose and dunk and cherry pick and straw man and pretend that you have a point as part of a performance, and you have the gall to accuse the person you disagree with of doing the exact things that you’re doing, when they’re actually not. These are the same tactics Donald Trump uses, by the way. Congratulations.

You also ignored how the vendor won’t directly deny Seldowitz‘s account of how things kicked off. Why is that?

Not only did I not ignore the bolded, I specifically addressed that point.

Where? All you did was dismiss Seldowitz’s account, because if someone says repulsive things, then everything they say must be a lie, apparently? That is a stunningly naive view of human behavior, and it doesn’t address the vendor’s deflections at all.

If you think Seldowitz would stop if the vendor said "I don't support Hamas" then you're simply delusional.

I never said anything of the kind. You’re inventing and projecting again. What I said was that the vendor had no reason to dodge the question when asked by journalists. If he’s truly the innocent that you wish him to be, he should have no problem clarifying that point to a journalist, but he consistently deflects the question. The only reason to do that is if he knows he’ll look bad if he answers truthfully, and he doesn’t want to lie. If you have a more credible explanation of his behavior, by all means, share it.

I directly respond to your points and can just as easily claim that you are the one who ignores everything.

Except that you don’t actually respond to most of my points, you respond to an exaggeration or a straw man of your own invention, and you ignore the points that undermine the conclusion you already leapt to long ago. I just demonstrated this again in this very post, which you will either ignore or attempt to twist yet again.

Or did you conveniently forget the last discussion we had in this thread, where I responded to every single one of your points, provided links that supported my arguments for any position that wasn't subjective, provided links that directly disproved some of the incorrect information you claimed; then took a page out of your book and asked you to provide sources and evidence, like you did before, yet you ignored everything and didn't engage at all.

The only thing I couldn’t provide was a link to the original poll I’d seen about a generic Democrat vs. Trump in 2024, which I acknowledged, but multiple polls soon afterward confirmed the point I had already made, and I provided a link at that time.

Your definition of “responding to a point” is bizarre, as demonstrated quite clearly in these most recent posts. You say things that are blatantly false, you respond to exaggerated inventions of your own mind rather than what was actually said, and you leap to irrational conclusions because they fit your world view better than the actual facts. At a certain point any attempt to respond to that becomes pointless, because you’re not actually engaging, you’re just reacting; and any further comment from my end would just be repeating myself, pointing out what was already said and why your comments aren’t connected to the actual conversation. I’m already having to do that here, and like I already said, it’s exhausting.

Absolute clown behavior. But have fun with the continuing ad hominems and strawmen, after all you seemingly don't have anything but fallacies and buzzwords at your disposal.

The irony of this comment is impossibly thick.

feel free to ignore me but I will continue pushing back and calling you out when I see some of your ridiculous takes or outright wrong information like the previous time.

Same here. I will call out bullshit where I see it, and if the conversation becomes clearly pointless, I will disengage. That seems to be the point you’ve brought this to. Again.

 

[Jer]

@Jer are you aware of that video? Search it.

I’m not aware of that, I’ll take a look.

EDIT: No relevant results on Seldowitz + Russia, embassy, and/or whore. Do you have a link?

 

[Vaenyr]

This will be my final comment to you because we've gone off-topic quite enough.

Let’s review:

So, you did in fact imply that I was saying his inflammatory remarks should be given credence, which I never did. I mean, you’re ignoring shit that was said in the very post you’re responding to, and conveniently ignoring shit you’ve said in your own most recent post too. Because you’re not trying to have an actual conversation, you’re trying to pose and dunk and cherry pick and straw man and pretend that you have a point as part of a performance, and you have the gall to accuse the person you disagree with of doing the exact things that you’re doing, when they’re actually not. These are the same tactics Donald Trump uses, by the way. Congratulations.

Maybe we have a different understanding of these words and phrases but this is not at all what I meant. You literally said that what set him off should be "considered seriously" and the only such account is Seldowitz's own. That to me mean giving credence to his ramblings. If you interpret that differently then I apologize.

Where? All you did was dismiss Seldowitz’s account, because if someone says repulsive things, then everything they say must be a lie, apparently? That is a stunningly naive view of human behavior, and it doesn’t address the vendor’s deflections at all.

He isn't deflecting. Let me quote from an article:

The vendor told the Daily Mail, giving his name as Mohammad and his age as 24, that he did nothing to provoke Seldowitz, who he said started asking him two weeks ago where he was from and harassing him about the war between Hamas and Israel. His boss, Islam Mustafa, translating for him, said Mohammad felt “hurt”.

So, he did address it. His account goes counter to Seldowitz's and the young man doesn't seem to be fluent in English in the first place. But you very obviously ignore any and all evidence that directly refutes your stances; it's not the first time that you do that. You have established a behavior of constantly either claiming wrong information due to ignorance, or maybe even outright lying. You were objectively incorrect on the trans topic and claimed some things that were easily disprovable and verifiably wrong. You were wrong when you mentioned the BLM protests and riots where I proved you wrong including a source that showed that the exact opposite of your claim was actually correct. You do this often and you never apoligize; you never even acknowledge that. You double down, switch to personal attacks and ad hominems, desperately trying to deflect and switch, throw around projections like a fucking IMAX theater trying to somehow save face. Your entire post here tries to claim that I'm somehow using strawmen and cherry-picking when this couldn't be further from the truth. I guess you're simply not used to people pushing back and calling you out on your bullshit.

I never said anything of the kind. You’re inventing and projecting again. What I said was that the vendor had no reason to dodge the question when asked by journalists. If he’s truly the innocent that you wish him to be, he should have no problem clarifying that point to a journalist, but he consistently deflects the question. The only reason to do that is if he knows he’ll look bad if he answers truthfully, and he doesn’t want to lie. If you have a more credible explanation of his behavior, by all means, share it.

I didn't say that you did say that. So no inventing and projecting. Nice try though. As stated above the vendor isn't dodging the question, has answered to the best of his ability but that's apparently not enough for you.

Except that you don’t actually respond to most of my points, you respond to an exaggeration or a straw man of your own invention, and you ignore the points that undermine the conclusion you already leapt to long ago. I just demonstrated this again in this very post, which you will either ignore or attempt to twist yet again.

Another lie. I regularly address your points, you simply shift goal posts or switch to attacks. Let's not forget that you were the first to switch to ad hominems when you felt the need to attack my world view. Because that's all you have and all you can do I suppose.

The only thing I couldn’t provide was a link to the original poll I’d seen about a generic Democrat vs. Trump in 2024, which I acknowledged, but multiple polls soon afterward confirmed the point I had already made, and I provided a link at that time.

And another fucking lie. I specifically asked for evidence for every single assertion and claim in the comment I made, because that's what you did to my comment. You ignored most of it and provided a single link. Nothing for the rest. You couldn't be more disingenuous if you tried.

Your definition of “responding to a point” is bizarre, as demonstrated quite clearly in these most recent posts. You say things that are blatantly false, you respond to exaggerated inventions of your own mind rather than what was actually said, and you leap to irrational conclusions because they fit your world view better than the actual facts. At a certain point any attempt to respond to that becomes pointless, because you’re not actually engaging, you’re just reacting; and any further comment from my end would just be repeating myself, pointing out what was already said and why your comments aren’t connected to the actual conversation. I’m already having to do that here, and like I already said, it’s exhausting.

Nothing I said was false, you simply misinterpret or have trouble understanding what others are trying to say. I'm directly addressing what you say, not the weird strawmen you claim. I try to link actual evidence and facts whenever I can, something you don't tend to do. No matter how often you repeat something, it doesn't become true just because you wish it did. Just because you don't like that people pick apart your nonsensical and fallacious arguments doesn't make them bad faith debaters, reactionaries or trolls.

Same here. I will call out bullshit where I see it, and if the conversation becomes clearly pointless, I will disengage. That seems to be the point you’ve brought this to. Again.

It's cute that you try to put the blame on me, but if it makes you feel better then do so. Just remember that you were the one who started the personal attacks; you are the one who regularly claims wrong information and never acknowledges that even when presented with actual sources that contradict you; you are the one can't help himself using projection, ad hominems, strawmen and lies because it is easier than engaging in good faith and actually presenting an argument.

There's no discussion to be had between us. I suppose we're just going to be each other's fact checker. Let's see how long it'll take until the next time I'll get to call out your wrong information with links and sources.

 

[Jer]

Let's not forget that you were the first to switch to ad hominems when you felt the need to attack my world view.

Let’s look at literally the first line of your first-ever comment directed at me in this thread:

I'm sorry @Jer, but you are blinded by your biases.

Ad hominem out of the gate. You lose.

You were objectively incorrect on the trans topic and claimed some things that were easily disprovable and verifiably wrong.

False, but the mods have made it clear that I can’t discuss this in any detail without risking having my posts unfairly deleted, so I have no way to respond to this ludicrous accusation here.

I try to link actual evidence and facts whenever I can, something you don't tend to do.

Provably false with a quick search of my posts in this thread.

The rest of this has either already been answered or is easily shown to be false or completely subjective on your end. I’m done wasting my time on you.

 

[Azas]

I had to do it

 

[Vaenyr]

Dr. Henry Kissinger Dies at Age 100

/PRNewswire/ -- Dr. Henry Kissinger, a respected American scholar and statesman, died today at his home in Connecticut. Henry Kissinger was born in southern...

www.prnewswire.com

 

[Poto]

Henry Kissinger, War Criminal Beloved by America's Ruling Class, Finally Dies

Henry Kissinger has died at age 100, his consulting firm said in a statement on Wednesday.

www.rollingstone.com

 

[Vaenyr]

Henry Kissinger, War Criminal Beloved by America's Ruling Class, Finally Dies

Henry Kissinger has died at age 100, his consulting firm said in a statement on Wednesday.

www.rollingstone.com

Yeah, that's the more interesting (and arguably more correct) headline.

 

[GhostofCain]

Yeah, that's the more interesting (and arguably more correct) headline.

 

[LooseCannon]

Please note that Rene Rojas died in 1988. Jacobin has been sitting on this for decades, waiting for Kissinger's death.

 

[Jer]

George Santos expelled from the House.

Well, that sure took long enough...

 

[Onhell]

George Santos expelled from the House.

Well, that sure took long enough...

Did we ever find out who the baby belonged to?

 

[Jer]

Did we ever find out who the baby belonged to?

One of them was apparently Lauren Boebert's granddaughter. Not sure about the others.

I'm sure when she gets older the baby will be happy to learn how grandma enjoyed getting stoned and giving hand jobs to Democrats at community theater productions. Good times!

 

[Mosh]

Kevin McCarthy leaving congress early - at the end of this year.

 

[Yax]

Honestly, it isn't something to be celebrated. Most quasi-MAGA or opportunistic collaborators (as well as any traditional, anti-MAGA) leaving congress will be replaced by real MAGA's in the districts not won by dems.

 

[Mosh]

Honestly, it isn't something to be celebrated. Most quasi-MAGA or opportunistic collaborators (as well as any traditional, anti-MAGA) leaving congress will be replaced by real MAGA's in the districts not won by dems.

Well it’s not that simple. For one thing, Kevin McCarthy was recently drawn into a district that was traditionally blue. While it’s not totally clear how things are going to shake out, him not running again is likely going to change that into a tossup race. A MAGA candidate isn’t really going to do well there anyway.

Add to that, McCarthy was one of the house GOP’s best fundraisers and helped deliver the majority and put those MAGA candidates into their seats. Anything that can chip away at the GOP’s campaign arm is going to matter in what’s going to be a close house race. And it does matter, just ask the Senate Republicans.

Edit: also not sure what special election rules are, but between this and George Santos the GOP is serious compromising its thin majority. This is going to create real problems for any impeachment or other legislative goals for the election year.