Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More blast from the AGC Past part.....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Why...it looks like The Doctor might be one as well. Something to be proud of. They only come about once in nature and then they are gone. Truly something beautiful.Well beautiful and Dave just might not fit together.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    Taking cheap shots at your opponent is not part of the definition of "snowflake"...
    It has been suggested that "Generation Snowflake" is derived from the term "snowflake",[3] which has been used to make reference to parents reportedly raising their children as "special" and "precious" snowflakes.[4][5] This usage of "snowflake" may originate from Chuck Palahniuk's 1996 novel Fight Club, which became a hit film in 1999. Both the novel and the film include the line "You are not special. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake."[4][3][6]

    The term "Generation Snowflake", or its variant "Snowflake Generation" is thought to have originated in the United States.[5] It came into wider use in the United Kingdom in 2016,[3] particularly after Claire Fox, founder of the think tank the Institute of Ideas, published a book called I Find That Offensive! In it she wrote about a confrontation between Yale University students and faculty Head of College, Nicholas Christakis.[7][8] The confrontation arose after Christakis' wife, Erika Christakis, a lecturer at the university, had suggested students should "relax a bit rather than labeling fancy dress Halloween costumes as culturally insensitive", according to Fox.[7] Fox described the video showing the students' reaction as a "screaming, almost hysterical mob of students".[7] Fox said the backlash to the viral video led to the disparaging moniker "generation snowflake" for the students.[7]

    The term "snowflake generation" was one of Collins Dictionary's 2016 words of the year.[9] Collins defines the term as "the young adults of the 2010s, viewed as being less resilient and more prone to taking offence than previous generations".[9] Similarly, in 2016 the Financial Times included "snowflake" in their annual Year in a Word list, defining it as "A derogatory term for someone deemed too emotionally vulnerable to cope with views that challenge their own, particularly in universities and other forums once known for robust debate" and noting that the insult had been aimed at an entire generation.[2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Snowflake
    Sorry Doc, I'm using the term as it is used here by a certain group of posters. They have to be correct, no one has challenged them on it. So I'll continue to use it the way it is currently being used as it appears to be no issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    Lets tweak this a bit:

    If something is petty now, why would it not be petty in 09????

    If someone is a Snowflake for posting petty stuff now, why are not those that did so in 09 also a Snowflake?

    Equal opportunity for all.
    Taking cheap shots at your opponent is not part of the definition of "snowflake"...
    It has been suggested that "Generation Snowflake" is derived from the term "snowflake",[3] which has been used to make reference to parents reportedly raising their children as "special" and "precious" snowflakes.[4][5] This usage of "snowflake" may originate from Chuck Palahniuk's 1996 novel Fight Club, which became a hit film in 1999. Both the novel and the film include the line "You are not special. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake."[4][3][6]

    The term "Generation Snowflake", or its variant "Snowflake Generation" is thought to have originated in the United States.[5] It came into wider use in the United Kingdom in 2016,[3] particularly after Claire Fox, founder of the think tank the Institute of Ideas, published a book called I Find That Offensive! In it she wrote about a confrontation between Yale University students and faculty Head of College, Nicholas Christakis.[7][8] The confrontation arose after Christakis' wife, Erika Christakis, a lecturer at the university, had suggested students should "relax a bit rather than labeling fancy dress Halloween costumes as culturally insensitive", according to Fox.[7] Fox described the video showing the students' reaction as a "screaming, almost hysterical mob of students".[7] Fox said the backlash to the viral video led to the disparaging moniker "generation snowflake" for the students.[7]

    The term "snowflake generation" was one of Collins Dictionary's 2016 words of the year.[9] Collins defines the term as "the young adults of the 2010s, viewed as being less resilient and more prone to taking offence than previous generations".[9] Similarly, in 2016 the Financial Times included "snowflake" in their annual Year in a Word list, defining it as "A derogatory term for someone deemed too emotionally vulnerable to cope with views that challenge their own, particularly in universities and other forums once known for robust debate" and noting that the insult had been aimed at an entire generation.[2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Snowflake

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Doc, I'm with you, until this portion:

    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    The people posting negative things about Obama 8 years ago, weren't Obama supporters, nor were they impartial observers. There is no ethical or logical requirement for partisans to be impartial.
    But there is a logical requirement for consistency. If a Trump appointee has done something very similar to an Obama appointee, then the level of criticism should be roughly the same. One shouldn't get hellfire and brimstone and the other benign silence just because one happened to have voted for the one but not the other. If you're correct -- that partisanship confers no obligation for consistency -- then partisanship is, by its very nature, just another form of hypocrisy. And logically speaking, one party's hypocrisy can not be superior to the other's. At the end of the day, hypocrisy is hypocrisy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    If something was important in 2009... Why would it be important in 2017?

    I think I've pretty consistently made that distinction.
    Lets tweak this a bit:

    If something is petty now, why would it not be petty in 09????

    If someone is a Snowflake for posting petty stuff now, why are not those that did so in 09 also a Snowflake?

    Equal opportunity for all.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    I can only assume that if they were important enough to post about in 09 they are important enough to dig up... makes sense to me...



    The problem with that last part was most posters here on ACG did not make that distinction....Not even close.
    If something was important in 2009... Why would it be important in 2017?

    I think I've pretty consistently made that distinction.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    Which, if you read my replies to those threads, I mostly said that the issues were unimportant and I even frequently defended Obama from unfair attacks... At least before he became Dear Leader Chairman Maobama.


    • Using debt to leverage growth = Good thing.
    • Using debt to fund handouts and expand government = Bad thing.


    Debt is a tool. It's neither good, nor bad... Sorry, Dave Ramsey.
    I can only assume that if they were important enough to post about in 09 they are important enough to dig up... makes sense to me...



    The problem with that last part was most posters here on ACG did not make that distinction....Not even close.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    Which is why I'm bring up the past comments. We need a good reminder of what is important and what is not.
    Which, if you read my replies to those threads, I mostly said that the issues were unimportant and I even frequently defended Obama from unfair attacks... At least before he became Dear Leader Chairman Maobama.

    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    I can't wait for the debt limit this spring or summer...
    • Using debt to leverage growth = Good thing.
    • Using debt to fund handouts and expand government = Bad thing.


    Debt is a tool. It's neither good, nor bad... Sorry, Dave Ramsey.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    It just demonstrates that Obama opponents, who sniped at Obama, aren't likely to snipe at Trump. Nor is there any logical or ethical expectation that they should.
    Which is why I'm bring up the past comments. We need a good reminder of what is important and what is not.

    I can't wait for the debt limit this spring or summer...

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    Yes, which is the very reason I'm bringing these up... I can't help but follow the trail laid down by those before me.

    It also shows demonstrates that whining about little things a new President does was also perfectly acceptable. Snowflake....
    It just demonstrates that Obama opponents, who sniped at Obama, aren't likely to snipe at Trump. Nor is there any logical or ethical expectation that they should.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    The epic fail of "hypocrisy traps."
    1. Go back 8 years and re-post threads critical of Obama.
    2. Claim that the lack of identical threads about similar Trump-related issues is hypocrisy on the part of Trump supporters.


    The logic fails on two levels:
    1. The people posting negative things about Obama 8 years ago, weren't Obama supporters, nor were they impartial observers. There is no ethical or logical requirement for partisans to be impartial.
    2. It's not the responsibility of Trump supporters to make arguments against Trump. This is the logical responsibility of Trump opponents.
    Yes, which is the very reason I'm bringing these up... I can't help but follow the trail laid down by those before me.

    It also shows demonstrates that whining about little things a new President does was also perfectly acceptable. Snowflake....

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    Lead exactly where I thought, I read the thread. Simple fact is that it was mulled over here and deemed not a good thing.
    It looks like I deemed it to be no big deal and a bit of a good thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    This is Monday. I predict 9 more anti-Trump threads from CE by midnight Sunday.
    The epic fail of "hypocrisy traps."
    1. Go back 8 years and re-post threads critical of Obama.
    2. Claim that the lack of identical threads about similar Trump-related issues is hypocrisy on the part of Trump supporters.


    The logic fails on two levels:
    1. The people posting negative things about Obama 8 years ago, weren't Obama supporters, nor were they impartial observers. There is no ethical or logical requirement for partisans to be impartial.
    2. It's not the responsibility of Trump supporters to make arguments against Trump. This is the logical responsibility of Trump opponents.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
    This is Monday. I predict 9 more anti-Trump threads from CE by midnight Sunday.
    Sorry, I take my guidance from those here that lean a bit right on the political spetrum and they seemed quite sure this was an important issue in 09. Logic says it is an important issue now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    Thread necromancy doesn't always lead where you might think...
    Lead exactly where I thought, I read the thread. Simple fact is that it was mulled over here and deemed not a good thing.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X