3 ms·

It is interesting that you say that, because I read about that protest in the Friday paper (from the 20th). The paper of course became available many hours befo

It is interesting that you say that, because I read about that protest in the Friday paper (from the 20th). The paper of course became available many hours before Trump was sworn in. Stop pretending that it was a reaction to anything he did in office. I don't know exactly how different protests would have played out if Trump took different actions in office, but it is overwhelmingly obvious that the protests are the result of emotion, not facts. Also, you seem to be confused about the phrase "get over yourself" means. It targets self importance such as "be better please", it makes no sense whatsoever as a response to my comment.

couchand 10y ago
That's a skillful evasion of facts you just executed, going from your previous claim that the protest occurred before the inauguration to just that it was planned before then. Well played. Your dubious claim about the motivations of large groups of individuals is not at all "overwhelmingly obvious." Get over yourself.
- benchaney 10y ago
  Is it an evasion of facts to focus on facts that are relevant? If a protest was planned before Trump took office, that logically excludes actions taken by Trump as motivation for the protest. That is "overwhelmingly obvious" to anyone who isn't confused by the concept of causality.
  - couchand 10y ago
    I don't think anyone claimed that the Women's March wasn't planned before January 20th, that would be absurd. However it was still clearly a reaction to Trump's words and actions, and that doesn't require him being a sitting president first. But it's worth noting the difference between that protest and the one at JFK, which I think it's pretty clear was a direct reaction to a specific policy created by President Trump. Using the Women's March as some sort of catch-all "haters gonna hate" dismissal of the valid concerns that many Americans have about the sitting president's actions is, to put it simply, a remarkable argument.
    - benchaney 10y ago
      I never used the women's march as a "hater's gonna hate" dismissal. I never even dismissed the concerns of protesters. My point was that protests are based on emotion. I only felt that need to make that point because eropple took some weird offense to me saying that the cause of protests was people being unhappy. It is fine with me if you want to defend him, but don't pretend that context doesn't exist.
      - eropple 10y ago
        I took offense to your cavalier dismissal of some real shit as "being unhappy". You trivialized it, and you knew what you were doing, and it was lousy behavior. And you shouldn't do that and you should be better.

couchand 10y ago

That's a skillful evasion of facts you just executed, going from your previous claim that the protest occurred before the inauguration to just that it was planned before then. Well played. Your dubious claim about the motivations of large groups of individuals is not at all "overwhelmingly obvious." Get over yourself.

benchaney 10y ago
Is it an evasion of facts to focus on facts that are relevant? If a protest was planned before Trump took office, that logically excludes actions taken by Trump as motivation for the protest. That is "overwhelmingly obvious" to anyone who isn't confused by the concept of causality.
- couchand 10y ago
  I don't think anyone claimed that the Women's March wasn't planned before January 20th, that would be absurd. However it was still clearly a reaction to Trump's words and actions, and that doesn't require him being a sitting president first. But it's worth noting the difference between that protest and the one at JFK, which I think it's pretty clear was a direct reaction to a specific policy created by President Trump. Using the Women's March as some sort of catch-all "haters gonna hate" dismissal of the valid concerns that many Americans have about the sitting president's actions is, to put it simply, a remarkable argument.
  - benchaney 10y ago
    I never used the women's march as a "hater's gonna hate" dismissal. I never even dismissed the concerns of protesters. My point was that protests are based on emotion. I only felt that need to make that point because eropple took some weird offense to me saying that the cause of protests was people being unhappy. It is fine with me if you want to defend him, but don't pretend that context doesn't exist.
    - eropple 10y ago
      I took offense to your cavalier dismissal of some real shit as "being unhappy". You trivialized it, and you knew what you were doing, and it was lousy behavior. And you shouldn't do that and you should be better.