5 ms·

Good for Palmer. I was sad to see all of the negativity in the various comment threads on this story around the Internet. The McCarthyist-style witch hunt aga

Good for Palmer. I was sad to see all of the negativity in the various comment threads on this story around the Internet. The McCarthyist-style witch hunt against Trump supporters is far scarier than anything Trump has ever said.

JBReefer 10y ago
A thousand times this. Is Trump right? No. Has the response to him been absolutely unacceptable? Yes.
- dicroce 10y ago
  Up until Trump started hinting about assassinating Hilary, I probably would have agreed with you. But he seriously crossed the line their from offensive to dangerous.
  - Muelleau 10y ago
    That's such bs. It's a typical Republican talking point: "If you're against people owning guns, you give up your guns first and see what happens". It's not an original or particularly good argument, but you're really straining credulity by suggesting this has anything to do with assassination of his rival.
  - drak0n1c 10y ago
    It was a rhetorical question defending the idea that all Americans, including Hillary, should be able to arm themselves in self-defense. Watch the full source material. "Watch them do X and let's see what happens" is a common form of framing a rhetorical question in New York when complaining about a bad idea. Sure, his mentioning of a specific individual in the context of gun control hypotheticals (instead of using a hypothetical individual) is an insensitive gaffe, but that's really all you can reasonably conclude about the statement. There are activists who routinely call for mass disarmament of citizens (entirely seriously and not as a form of rhetorical exploration), and it is unreasonable to conclude that the activists are "hinting" at or condone any kind of authoritarianism or genocide that may coincidentally result after such a policy is implemented. Don't muddle the discourse further with similarly unreasonable conclusions.
    - Angostura 10y ago
      Except you're ignoring his earlier pronouncement that if she starts picking judges there is 'nothing we can do, except maybe you 2nd amendment guys' (paraphrasing because I'm on mobile)
      - drak0n1c 10y ago
        No one refers to refers to regular gun owners, let alone murderous individuals, as "2nd amendment people". In the context of judges and laws it's clearly a reference to lawyers and lobbyists. The NRA and ACLU have an impressive history defeating legal challenges to the 2nd amendment, such as the no-fly list gun ban debate that happened in the weeks prior to that comment of his. Jumping to assuming that the forces he intended to describe are assassins who pre-empt the presidential appointments is occam's razor territory.
- lazerwalker 10y ago
  Take Trump out of the picture. Has the response been appropriate, given that a lot of the Trump-adjacent rhetoric (see: the stuff Luckey's been funding) is racist propaganda that literally (and proudly) coopts ideas, language, and imagery from Neo-Nazi groups? (And before anyone responds, please recognize that calling it "Neo-Nazi" isn't some liberal smear. They're 100% open about this.)
- bkmartin 10y ago
  Can you give an example of what you mean by "the response" and how it is "absolutely unacceptable"?
- benmcnelly 10y ago
  I really expected a measured and intellectual response to trump, almost as a learning experience for people that are tempted to follow him, like hey here is some non-judgmental education for you, check out what we can learn from this, etc.
Angostura 10y ago
I guess it's far scarier unless you are a Mexican, a Muslim, or believe that climate change is a pressing global issue
- chourobin 10y ago
  Or just a decent human being.
  - CptJamesCook 10y ago
    Most people you disagree with politically are decent human beings.
cma 10y ago
This isn't people being turned off Oculus because of a voting preference of a founder. This is him funding smear campaigns for a fascist. Now that money is considered speech under citizens united, boycotts, etc. must be as well until we can get it overturned. Palmer wants to directly fund Trump with your Rift expenditures: > Our adversaries have enormous power, and the best way I can continue to fight the good fight is to keep doing well in business and funding good causes with the proceeeds. https://archive.is/4OuYq#selection-3341.176-3341.346 https://archive.is/4OuYq#selection-3341.176-3341.346 This isn't some citizen sharing his opinion proportionately to his vote or his social status, this is him using money to amplify his voice and control discourse. Hillary has PACs, etc. that do the same. We should work to get money out of politics, but in the meantime it seems fine to vote with your wallet in cases where your money is being used as speech and you disagree with the speech.
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago
  I think real fascists would be embarrassed by him, because he isn't good at politics.
  - cubano 10y ago
    He isn't? He wiped Bush, Cruz, and even the superstar politician Rubio off the map, spending a fraction of what they did in doing it as well. Say what you will about his views, many of which I personally find refreshing, but saying he isn't a good politician flies completely in the face of the facts of this election cycle.
    - 0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago
      Yes fine, but even a mediocre politician knows how to avoid being called racist, sexist, and especially fascist.
      - krapp 10y ago
        When you want people who hate politics, politicians and political correctness in any form to vote for you, then getting called a racist and a sexist just separates you from the status-quo pack and makes you seem more appealing. That Trump could avoid the bad press if he wanted, but doesn't, suggests that he welcomes it. And, to his credit, it seems to be working for him. He's been able to harness a sense of mass disenfranchisement and anti-establishment rage that the Republican Party has been unable to tap into, despite their best efforts.

JBReefer 10y ago

A thousand times this. Is Trump right? No. Has the response to him been absolutely unacceptable? Yes.

dicroce 10y ago
Up until Trump started hinting about assassinating Hilary, I probably would have agreed with you. But he seriously crossed the line their from offensive to dangerous.
- Muelleau 10y ago
  That's such bs. It's a typical Republican talking point: "If you're against people owning guns, you give up your guns first and see what happens". It's not an original or particularly good argument, but you're really straining credulity by suggesting this has anything to do with assassination of his rival.
- drak0n1c 10y ago
  It was a rhetorical question defending the idea that all Americans, including Hillary, should be able to arm themselves in self-defense. Watch the full source material. "Watch them do X and let's see what happens" is a common form of framing a rhetorical question in New York when complaining about a bad idea. Sure, his mentioning of a specific individual in the context of gun control hypotheticals (instead of using a hypothetical individual) is an insensitive gaffe, but that's really all you can reasonably conclude about the statement. There are activists who routinely call for mass disarmament of citizens (entirely seriously and not as a form of rhetorical exploration), and it is unreasonable to conclude that the activists are "hinting" at or condone any kind of authoritarianism or genocide that may coincidentally result after such a policy is implemented. Don't muddle the discourse further with similarly unreasonable conclusions.
  - Angostura 10y ago
    Except you're ignoring his earlier pronouncement that if she starts picking judges there is 'nothing we can do, except maybe you 2nd amendment guys' (paraphrasing because I'm on mobile)
    - drak0n1c 10y ago
      No one refers to refers to regular gun owners, let alone murderous individuals, as "2nd amendment people". In the context of judges and laws it's clearly a reference to lawyers and lobbyists. The NRA and ACLU have an impressive history defeating legal challenges to the 2nd amendment, such as the no-fly list gun ban debate that happened in the weeks prior to that comment of his. Jumping to assuming that the forces he intended to describe are assassins who pre-empt the presidential appointments is occam's razor territory.
lazerwalker 10y ago
Take Trump out of the picture. Has the response been appropriate, given that a lot of the Trump-adjacent rhetoric (see: the stuff Luckey's been funding) is racist propaganda that literally (and proudly) coopts ideas, language, and imagery from Neo-Nazi groups? (And before anyone responds, please recognize that calling it "Neo-Nazi" isn't some liberal smear. They're 100% open about this.)
bkmartin 10y ago
Can you give an example of what you mean by "the response" and how it is "absolutely unacceptable"?
benmcnelly 10y ago
I really expected a measured and intellectual response to trump, almost as a learning experience for people that are tempted to follow him, like hey here is some non-judgmental education for you, check out what we can learn from this, etc.

Angostura 10y ago

I guess it's far scarier unless you are a Mexican, a Muslim, or believe that climate change is a pressing global issue

chourobin 10y ago
Or just a decent human being.
- CptJamesCook 10y ago
  Most people you disagree with politically are decent human beings.

cma 10y ago

This isn't people being turned off Oculus because of a voting preference of a founder. This is him funding smear campaigns for a fascist. Now that money is considered speech under citizens united, boycotts, etc. must be as well until we can get it overturned. Palmer wants to directly fund Trump with your Rift expenditures: > Our adversaries have enormous power, and the best way I can continue to fight the good fight is to keep doing well in business and funding good causes with the proceeeds. https://archive.is/4OuYq#selection-3341.176-3341.346 https://archive.is/4OuYq#selection-3341.176-3341.346 This isn't some citizen sharing his opinion proportionately to his vote or his social status, this is him using money to amplify his voice and control discourse. Hillary has PACs, etc. that do the same. We should work to get money out of politics, but in the meantime it seems fine to vote with your wallet in cases where your money is being used as speech and you disagree with the speech.

0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago
I think real fascists would be embarrassed by him, because he isn't good at politics.
- cubano 10y ago
  He isn't? He wiped Bush, Cruz, and even the superstar politician Rubio off the map, spending a fraction of what they did in doing it as well. Say what you will about his views, many of which I personally find refreshing, but saying he isn't a good politician flies completely in the face of the facts of this election cycle.
  - 0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago
    Yes fine, but even a mediocre politician knows how to avoid being called racist, sexist, and especially fascist.
    - krapp 10y ago
      When you want people who hate politics, politicians and political correctness in any form to vote for you, then getting called a racist and a sexist just separates you from the status-quo pack and makes you seem more appealing. That Trump could avoid the bad press if he wanted, but doesn't, suggests that he welcomes it. And, to his credit, it seems to be working for him. He's been able to harness a sense of mass disenfranchisement and anti-establishment rage that the Republican Party has been unable to tap into, despite their best efforts.