3 ms·
I think you mean the Gulf of Mexico. It's poor form to let a crybaby bully have his way.
by phlakaton 1mo ago
I think you mean the Gulf of Mexico.
It's poor form to let a crybaby bully have his way.
- wjessup 1mo ago[flagged]
- zamadatix 1mo agoI'm not a fan of the guy myself but is this really the way we want to debate things here?
- phlakaton 1mo agoThere's no debate. There never was. There is only concession to the diktat or resistance.
- zamadatix 1mo agoDebate used to be the staunchest form of resistance. This last decade, racing to call the opposition a crybaby and declare it activism seems to be more in vogue.
- 9dev 1mo agoNo, sorry, that’s a strawman. You’re framing this as if we were talking about some nuanced policy issue, which it isn’t. The concrete situation is a president unilaterally renaming a geographical feature for no other defensible reason than hubris, in disagreement with the rest of the region. I agree with GP - there is no debate to be had over this, only rejection.
- detritus 1mo agoIndeed, if you don't push back and reject it, it just encourages him to repeat the same - see Lake Ontario > Lake America.
- zombot 1mo agoMaybe he thinks it would make America great again. It's one of the great lakes, after all.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- zamadatix 1mo agoI wholeheartedly stand behind pushing back on & rejecting these kinds of decisions and policies. Please don't mistake "not wanting the comments here to jump straight to name calling" as "wanting people who disagree with Trump to instead say nothing here".
- jiggawatts 1mo agoTrump is the one who normalised name calling. You elected a bully to be your leader. A bully who calls women “piggy”, and everyone lets him get away with it.
- zamadatix 1mo agoI voted for Jill Stein, that Trump won even though he says vile things should not be an excuse for us to normalize it even further. There are a lot of reasons he gets away with things which need to be dealt with, people getting riled up by him enough to act the same way instead is precisely what he wants.
- jiggawatts 1mo agoThe very same Jill Stein who infamously attended a dinner in Moscow and sat next to Vladimir Putin? The Jill Stein that was investigated because she was clearly in bed with foreign powers hell bent on keeping Hillary Clinton out of the White House? That Jill Stein? You may as well have voted for Trump. You effectively did when you voted against the sane, rational choice. You voted against a stateswoman who tried to stop precisely the kind of behaviour that is pushing us to the brink of a new world war. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/10/third-party-candidate-gary-johnson-jill-stein-clinton-loss https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/10/third-party-... https://electionscience.org/education/vote-splitting https://electionscience.org/education/vote-splitting
- zamadatix 1mo agoFrom the first entry in Cambridge Dictionary (though there may certainly be more than one valid definition to consider, this is the one I have been using): > (a) serious discussion of a subject in which many people take part The debate I'm referring to is here, the discussion between commenters on HN about which name should be used (I'm well on the side of Gulf of Mexico as well). One does not need to see multi-sided nuance on the topic itself to engage in debate, they just need to engage in discussion about it. We can certainly choose to not have serious discussion, skipping straight to the name calling summaries instead. I'd consider that a great loss of one of the last open places on the internet where you could avoid that jump whenever something political comes up. I agree the rename has no good reasons, causes upset & confusion, and was seemingly done out of nothing but hubris & political tactics. I disagree the way to communicate that is just by replying the president is a crybaby instead of seriously discussing these points directly. Please don't mistake that as saying we shouldn't push back or "both sides are right". It's purely about what was on the original tin - can we still have serious discussion here instead of jumping straight to how much we don't like someone as the only reason why.
- phlakaton 1mo agoThere is no serious discussion on this point. There was never intended to be. There is only the bullying, and now the tone policing. But we all have better things to do with our time.
- zamadatix 1mo agoI've been serious so far and I hold an open invite anyone to join in as they'd like - the more the merrier :).
- zombot 1mo ago> racing to call the opposition a crybaby Nobody is calling "the opposition" a crybaby, but a specific crybaby person.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- phlakaton 1mo agoAnd I can provide more than adequate evidence supporting that assertion.
- zombot 1mo agoI was just referring to this thread. Outside of that, sure. For a bunch of people who would like to be seen as strong men, this opposition seems rather thin-skinned.
- zamadatix 1mo agoI assumed it apparent Trump and his renaming of the Gulf of Mexico was what the original comment opposed. Perhaps an error on my part as not everyone sees that view the opposition here, but certainly for the one I was replying to at least.
- beanjuiceII 1mo ago[flagged]