Jump to content

Scott Dolan

Members
  • Posts

    5,904
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

Posts posted by Scott Dolan

  1. 9 minutes ago, Dan Gould said:

    Jim can clarify for himself but I am pretty certain that what he means is "certain kind of American" sounded like stereotypical yahoo, conservative or Trumpist (or both), probably a southerner, whereas Jim is on the left politically but supports the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms for personal protection.  So Paul was lumping him in with a political cohort he is far away from, but with which he has one thing in common.

    That’s a rampant problem all throughout American political discourse. Everything is either/or, there is no allowance for nuance. I’ve certainly been guilty of it in the past, but I tend to be hyper aware of it these days. 

  2. 8 minutes ago, Big Beat Steve said:

    Threatening or not ... having read that amputated thread since, I would have not seen that statement as being that threatening either, BUT ...

    In the same vein IMVHO there is nothing that offensive about that "certain type of American" either. Everyone following the discussion of guns and gun ownership in the USA (particularly when another madman has run amok again and killed inocent bystanders or some immature child has been let loose playing with loaded guns left unattended by a waaaay too dumb parent and killing his/her playmate) is that it is FAR from so that EVERY American is all out and eager to obtain, cherish and wield his/her gun as if his "Americanness" depened on it or even condone possession of guns. By all accounts and cutting ANY slack for possible exaggeration in what the news people write on that subject everywhere, it DOES look like there are plenty of Americans out there these days too who are all opposed to what the NRA and gun ownership advocacy stand for. In short, "one certain type of Americans" wants and cherishes their guns (of which the "stand your ground" approach may be fairly understandable and ONE reason why they cherish it - but just one) and another "certain type of American" does not approve of this at all and fears this will make things worse in too many situations. So what, then? Look at it any way you want, but OVERALL your country is quite divided about this. But that's a problem that will have to be solved within the country. Us others can only watch ...

    And then there’s me. A very liberal progressive type living in the heart of Red State America that sees and empathizes with both sides of the debate. 99.99% of gun owners are highly responsible and respectable people. But yes, gun violence and mass shooting are definitely a problem. 

    I certainly have no solution, but I do recognize the problems. Do nothing and continue down this bloody path, do something and you’ll only affect the responsible owners since bad people will always be able to get guns. It’s an incredibly complicated problem with no easy solutions. 

  3. Personal attacks are things like calling you a disgusting human being, no matter how true. Worst consequence: pissing the other person off. 

    Threatening someone with a weapon is something that can land you in jail. 

    Wee bit of difference between those two things. Not that I expect you to comprehend any of that. 

  4. 2 minutes ago, Dan Gould said:

    Totally understood what you meant and I'll say it again: Its ludicrous to think Jim was threatening Paul in any way shape or form.

    You and Jim can remain as tone deaf as you wish, but five posters here are telling you otherwise. How could that possibly be if in fact it were “ludicrous”. 

  5. 23 minutes ago, Dan Gould said:

    And I thought a reaction that what Jim said was an actual or even allegorical threat to be completely ludicrous. 

    It's unfortunate that Paul left over it, but I do now recall the way the thread went even after Paul's removal of his posts.  I certainly hadn't put that together with his no longer posting.

    You’re free to have that opinion, but as worded it is indeed a threat. That’s not to say that was Jim’s intention. Just that when looking for the right words to convey his thoughts, he found all the wrong ones.

    If multiple people can read it the same way, well, then you’ve got fire. 

  6. 6 minutes ago, medjuck said:

    He sent me a pm during that contretemps thanking me for defending him when Jim literally threatened him.  I didn't really defend him, just responded to Jim. Didn't seem to be a moderator there. 

    Um, my response just now reading that thread was similar to yours. I’d advise Jim to be very careful when making comments like that on a public forum, because that could very well lead to a knock at the door. Very poorly worded, and in incredibly poor taste. Now it’s perfectly clear why Paul left. 

  7. 48, less than a month away from 49. And she didn’t lure me in with her body. My first exposure to her was the video for Bad Romance. I actually found her to be a bit of an ugly duckling, but thought the song was fantastic. So if she was actually trying to be sexually alluring, it definitely wasn’t working for me, but the talent was glaringly obvious. 

    So for years I kind of admired her from a distance, but when Joanne was released I was all the way in. And then her turn in A Star Is Born showed what a great actress she is, and how downright beautiful she really is. 

     

     

     

  8. All fair enough. 

    Can you explain the Gaga phenomenon? The cats that got me to even pay attention to her were my age or older. 

    I don’t care about “real time” or “baselines”, I just want to know what the fuck you really think is going on. Because while I don’t subscribe to your notion of what “drives” pop culture, I’m at least open to what you have to say. God help me...

×
×
  • Create New...