Sociopath Community

Dragoonback said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Incorrect. What's going on here is we know something you don't. We're carrying on forward with conversation and you're out of the loop. It may come to you as a surprise, but it wasn't I who made Bill Clinton. 

You're saying I'm “out of the loop,” but then you don't actually explain what I'm supposedly missing.
 

 That's right.

I'm moving forward not backward. I'm not the one vilifying Clinton here, this is common knowledge. No need to move backward and talk about What he did and what he's known for just because there are people who have no idea. 

Spatial Mind said: 

That's right. I'm moving forward not backward. I'm not the one vilifying Clinton here, this is common knowledge. No need to move backward and talk about What he did and what he's known for just because there are people who have no idea. 

You're still not addressing what I asked. I wasn't asking you to “move backward” and explain everything Clinton has done. I was asking about the standard you're using when you call him a villain while separating out the “good” parts of him. Once you introduce that distinction, it's reasonable to ask whether you apply the same standard consistently to other people. Saying it's “common knowledge” that Clinton is a villain doesn't answer that.

Yes.

Spatial Mind said: 

Yes.

Then what is the standard? You said Clinton is a villain while also saying the good parts of him remain intact. I'm asking what distinguishes someone who has done serious wrong from someone you still consider acceptable despite similar wrongdoing. If you can't state the standard or apply it consistently, then “he's a villain” is just a label rather than an argument.

Dragoonback said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Yes.

Then what is the standard?

The same.

You said Clinton is a villain while also saying the good parts of him remain intact. I'm asking what distinguishes someone who has done serious wrong from someone you still consider acceptable despite similar wrongdoing. If you can't state the standard or apply it consistently, then “he's a villain” is just a label rather than an argument.

 Just because someone is bad, doesn't mean they're stripped of their merit or talents. 

Take Eminem for example. He comes across as a political puppet on a string. His politics are driven by hatred. He's still a great rapper, that I can never take away from him. Even if he turned into public enemy #1 and blew up half the globe, no denying he'd still be a good rapper.

The 2nd post I wrote here is sound, and it's a reply to Nathan's remark on Clinton. Seems like you never read it, but I'm not simply making up him being a villian. 

If you know you know. 

Spatial Mind said: 

Take Eminem for example. He comes across as a political puppet on a string. His politics are driven by hatred. He's still a great rapper, that I can never take away from him. Even if he turned into public enemy #1 and blew up half the globe, no denying he'd still be a good rapper.

If anything, your use of “hatred” here seems highly selective. You're calling Eminem hateful because he opposes Trump, while you support Trump and regularly make hostile, insulting, and judgmental statements about other people yourself. So it doesn't seem like you're applying a general standard against hateful rhetoric. You seem to be treating hostility as objectionable when it's directed at someone you favor and acceptable when it's coming from you or directed at people you dislike.

That still doesn't establish any consistent standard for calling someone a “villain.” It just shows that your moral judgments are heavily dependent on who you're talking about.

Dragoonback said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Take Eminem for example. He comes across as a political puppet on a string. His politics are driven by hatred. He's still a great rapper, that I can never take away from him. Even if he turned into public enemy #1 and blew up half the globe, no denying he'd still be a good rapper.

If anything, your use of “hatred” here seems highly selective. You're calling Eminem hateful because he opposes Trump, while you support Trump and regularly make hostile, insulting, and judgmental statements about other people yourself. So it doesn't seem like you're applying a general standard against hateful rhetoric. You seem to be treating hostility as objectionable when it's directed at someone you favor and acceptable when it's coming from you or directed at people you dislike.

That still doesn't establish any consistent standard for calling someone a “villain.” It just shows that your moral judgments are heavily dependent on who you're talking about.

 You can whine and misdirect toward conclusions all you want. My claim remains the same regardless of your inability to digest it. 

"Just because someone is bad, doesn't mean they're stripped of their merit or talents."

Eminem's politics are hate driven, as is with anyone who won't talk policy over character. 

Everyone is good at something. Even Bill Clinton. 

Golden_Eagle said: 

 You can whine and misdirect toward conclusions all you want. My claim remains the same regardless of your inability to digest it. 

"Just because someone is bad, doesn't mean they're stripped of their merit or talents."

Eminem's politics are hate driven, as is with anyone who won't talk policy over character. 

I actually think you're reversing the obvious example here. Eminem's political opposition to people you support does not by itself demonstrate that his politics are “hate driven.” Disliking or strongly criticizing a politician is not the same thing as hatred.

If anything, your own rhetoric gives me considerably more reason to describe your politics and social judgments as hostility-driven. You frequently use contemptuous language, mock people, assign negative motives to people who disagree with you, and frame opponents as weak, stupid, inferior, or deserving of punishment. That's observable from what you actually say, rather than something I have to speculate about internally.

So your Eminem example doesn't establish that his politics are hateful. It mostly demonstrates that you interpret strong opposition to people you support as hatred while giving yourself considerably more latitude when you express hostility toward people you dislike.

Dragoonback said: 

Golden_Eagle said: 

 You can whine and misdirect toward conclusions all you want. My claim remains the same regardless of your inability to digest it. 

"Just because someone is bad, doesn't mean they're stripped of their merit or talents."

Eminem's politics are hate driven, as is with anyone who won't talk policy over character. 

I actually think you're reversing the obvious example here. Eminem's political opposition to people you support does not by itself demonstrate that his politics are “hate driven.” Disliking or strongly criticizing a politician is not the same thing as hatred.

If anything, your own rhetoric gives me considerably more reason to describe your politics and social judgments as hostility-driven. You frequently use contemptuous language, mock people, assign negative motives to people who disagree with you, and frame opponents as weak, stupid, inferior, or deserving of punishment. That's observable from what you actually say, rather than something I have to speculate about internally.

So your Eminem example doesn't establish that his politics are hateful. It mostly demonstrates that you interpret strong opposition to people you support as hatred while giving yourself considerably more latitude when you express hostility toward people you dislike.

 Eminem cursed some of his own fans over it, and told them to leave his side. It's not up to me to prove what can be found at your fingertips. My claim remains. Eminem's politics are hate driven.

Yes Eminem hating Trump is a valid claim. I don't particularly care in all honesty, the point I'm making is, the guy can rap no matter how rotten he can be. 

Same with Epstein Island Regular, Bill Clinton who railed underaged girls. ( You never knew this )

If he did indeed rise from the ashes from nothing, from abusive parents and went on to become the president of the united states and above the law, that's something that cannot be taken away from him, even if he were locked up for his crimes. 

Eminem opposing Trump does not establish that his politics are “hate driven.” Strongly opposing someone because you regard them as harmful, or telling people who promote bigotry and intolerance to fuck off, isn't inherently the same as building your politics around hatred. You're collapsing the distinction between opposing intolerance and practicing it.

That standard looks especially selective coming from you. Your own rhetoric is constantly saturated with contempt, insults, hostile assumptions, superiority, punishment, retaliation, and judgment toward people you dislike. Yet you single out Eminem's hostility toward Trump as evidence of some uniquely hateful political outlook while treating your own much more pervasive hostility as justified. The issue isn't whether Eminem can be hostile. Obviously he can. It's your unsupported leap from “he strongly dislikes Trump and MAGA” to “his politics are driven by hatred.”

Your treatment of Clinton and Trump shows the same selectivity. You repeatedly invoke Clinton's association with Epstein to reinforce your condemnation of him, while insisting there is “no evidence” against Trump despite Trump's documented relationship with Epstein, including multiple flights on Epstein's plane. Trump also publicly described entering pageant dressing rooms while contestants were changing, while former Miss Teen USA contestants separately alleged that he entered their dressing room while minors were changing.

So you can separate Eminem's musical talent from your judgment of his politics, but that doesn't make your claim about his motives established. You're applying a much harsher interpretation to hostility when it comes from someone you oppose while giving considerably more latitude to hostility that comes from you or is directed at people you dislike.