MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Thursday, July 31, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 79.0° F  A Few Clouds
Collapse Photo Bar

"Literally"...really?

If it doesn't fit anywhere else, it fits here

Re: "Literally"...really?

Postby wack wack » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:01 am

Sandi wrote:
Anyone else peeved by the increasingly untoward use of "literally"?


How about the "increasingly untoward use of violence" to make a point? I am a bit more peeved about that.


No. Perhaps if someone were literally killed, the madness would stop.

Conservatives have shown they are completely unwilling or incapable of responding to persuasive tools such as data, logic, reason, public opinion or majority rule. It's getting to the point where "violence" will soon be the only tool left with which to work.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3084
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: "Literally"...really?

Postby Meade » Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:05 pm

Have to admit, "whack whack" is the perfect name for someone who literally promotes violence against his political opponents.
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: "Literally"...really?

Postby Mean Scenester » Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:45 pm

Meade wrote:Have to admit, "whack whack" is the perfect name for someone who literally promotes violence against his political opponents.

You do know your precious Second Amendment stems directly from a violent conflict for independence with what were, in the grand scheme, our political opponents and that many who continue to defend it hold up the potential need to defend against a tyrannical government as its fundamental rationale, right?

Not saying I condone this violence by any means, but conservatives' complete inability to detect irony (particularly in their own paradoxical beliefs and opinions) never ceases to amaze me. You sit here and suggest this guy should have been packing and reacted to this assault with a disproportionate and deadly use of force. Oh, but that's not condoning violence. That's just being a good little lock-step NRA sycophant.

You. Fucking. Moron.
Mean Scenester
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:56 pm

Re: "Literally"...really?

Postby Meade » Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:48 pm

Mean Scenester wrote:Not saying I condone this violence by any means

Yes you are, you lying liar.
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: "Literally"...really?

Postby Mean Scenester » Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:10 pm

Meade wrote:
Mean Scenester wrote:Not saying I condone this violence by any means

Yes you are, you lying liar.

Strong rebuttal there, Mr. Someone Should Have Popped A Cap In Someone Else's Ass.
Mean Scenester
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:56 pm

Re: "Literally"...really?

Postby pjbogart » Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:23 pm

I'm not sure if you call it "condoning violence" or simply "anticipating" it, but if I were to pull a dick move like sucking millions of dollars out of an employee pension fund to pay big bonuses to myself and my fellow executives in a corporation, I'd be sure to use some of my ill-earned cash to build a big fence and security system in my house. Why? Because when I screw over 20,000 workers, there's a good chance a few of them will want to put a bullet in my head. But hey, I knew that before I screwed them over and I did it anyway out of pure, unadulterated greed, so you don't need to shed any tears for me.

And this entire scenario is playing out on a rather grand scale, isn't it? It's not just about Hostess, the UAW, Michigan or even the Republican Party. It's about a war between the haves and have nots. The people who have climbed the ladder are desperately trying to remove all of the rungs, one at a time, to make sure no one is following them.

We need more bread and circuses to keep us occupied or the shit might hit the fan. That's not really a threat, it's just a fact of how these things usually work. The American Revolution was a war fought by common people who resented the the absolute power of royalty. It seems like we're pretty much back where we started.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6112
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: "Literally"...really?

Postby Ducatista » Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:56 pm

jman111 wrote:Anyone else peeved by the increasingly untoward use of "literally"?

Not if I imagine it pronounced the way Rob Lowe says it on Parks & Recreation, which takes some of the sting out.
Ducatista
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4330
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 12:31 pm
Location: 53703

Re: "Literally"...really?

Postby wack wack » Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:04 pm

Meade wrote:Have to admit, "whack whack" is the perfect name for someone who literally promotes violence against his political opponents.


Can't even spell it correctly when you're looking at it. Your stupidity might be dangerous if you weren't so feeble.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3084
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: "Literally"...really?

Postby mayact4 » Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:30 pm

I am literally more annoyed by "I'd of" when the speaker, any speaker in the world, means "I'd have".
mayact4
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:44 pm

Re: "Literally"...really?

Postby ArturoBandini » Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:10 pm

Why are we arguing about the word "literally"? That Steven Crowder video was pretty intense. I'm kinda proud of Wisconsinites for not behaving as poorly as the Michiganers portrayed when confronted by political opponents during our own labor law moment-of-crisis. I never saw anyone delivering actual blows near the WI capital, did you?
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: "Literally"...really?

Postby ArturoBandini » Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:12 pm

pjbogart wrote:I'm not sure if you call it "condoning violence" or simply "anticipating" it
How does this compare with the logic of arguments such as, "well, she shouldn't have been wearing such a revealing outfit"?

Edit: I leave this post here for all to read, but I didn't fully read pj's comments in the proper context. I was still thinking about the Crowder video and the many awful comments in the HuffPo article.

pj - carry on, my mistake.
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: "Literally"...really?

Postby kurt_w » Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:21 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:
pjbogart wrote:I'm not sure if you call it "condoning violence" or simply "anticipating" it
How does this compare with the logic of arguments such as, "well, she shouldn't have been wearing such a revealing outfit"?


Not very well, unless you think that rapists might conceivably have a legitimate grievance against their victims.

Which I hasten to say I'm sure you don't.

That's also not to say that anyone with a legitimate economic grievance against the rich and powerful is justified in using violence to address that grievance. But there's a big difference between a situation where a grievance exists, and one where one doesn't. Your analogy is pretty offensive, actually.
kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4981
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: "Literally"...really?

Postby ArturoBandini » Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:40 pm

kurt_w wrote:Not very well, unless you think that rapists might conceivably have a legitimate grievance against their victims.

Which I hasten to say I'm sure you don't.

That's also not to say that anyone with a legitimate economic grievance against the rich and powerful is justified in using violence to address that grievance. But there's a big difference between a situation where a grievance exists, and one where one doesn't. Your analogy is pretty offensive, actually.
Oh no, offense! Heaven forbid we test the boundaries of polite conversation on TDPF. I purposefully picked an extreme example because that's what I do (argumentum ad absurdum), but I don't see my rape-rationalization as categorically different than rationalizing violence in response to labor law changes. We don't have to get into that, because I'm sure you're not interested in ingenuously exploring the issue anyway.

The legitimacy of the union grievance in this case is entirely subjective. Subjectivity notwithstanding, what's best for society might leave some people with legitimate grievances. If we raised marginal income tax rates to 95% to the benefit of society (hypothetically speaking), the rich might have a legitimate grievance against the rest of society, especially those few who made their billions providing valuable goods and services. In the case of union/labor law, if the current grievance is only the result of acclimation to previous legal privileges, is there really a grievance to speak of?
ArturoBandini
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2251
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: near west

Re: "Literally"...really?

Postby kurt_w » Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:12 am

Yeesh. I'm really not interested in carrying this discussion of the rape analogy further. I think I made my point as well as I'm going to be able to right now, and it's either convincing or not.

So let's back up and make this as abstract as possible. I agree that the concept of a "legitimate grievance" is subjective. But whether some other person believes they have a "legitimate grievance" is fairly objective. You can tell someone else that they don't have a legitimate grievance, but you can't really tell them that they don't believe they have a legitimate grievance. We might have no way of determining what that person believes -- they could lie about it -- but, fundamentally, they either believe something or they don't.

So. Consider two people, A and B, each of whom perpetuates an act of violence against someone else. In A's case, A believes A has a legitimate grievance against his victim, and justifies his act based on that grievance. In B's case, B is simply preying on his victim, without the excuse of a perceived grievance.

It seems to me that regardless of whether you're remarking on the predictability of the act of violence (as PJ was) or on its morality, B is not a good analogy for A. It also seems to me that this doesn't depend on the "legitimacy" of A's grievance, in any objective sense of the word.

Regardless of whether we think A's motivation was "legitimate" or "illegitimate", A's motivation and B's motivation were different.

Disclaimer: Although I am technically a "Doctor of Philosophy", I really don't know anything at all about this philosophical crap and I'm just making it up as I go along.
kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4981
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm

Re: "Literally"...really?

Postby butters » Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:59 pm

ArturoBandini wrote:How does this compare with the logic of arguments such as, "well, she shouldn't have been wearing such a revealing outfit"?

If she literally asked for it by pleading and begging the rapist to have sex with her, then you might have a valid comparison.

Crowder pleaded and begged for it because his goal was to get footage of protesters being violent to fit the Fox News narrative. He also wanted the attention. He literally asked for it.
butters
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 544
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Catch All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar