Gaga tweets Hillary for Mother's Day, fans react

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

7 minutes ago, Didymus said:

My original post was about how I wish we'd have more info, because up to now we can only guess she's voting for her because she wants to see a woman as president (and I have already explained multiple times why I concluded that - sure, it's circumstantial evidence, but that's all we have, which is what I was complaining about in the first place).

All this sexist stuff is just overanalyzing and insertion of intentions that were never in my post and that I have already dismissed over and over again.

Well it's great you are admitting your evidence is circumstantial, although one wonders you find that enough to warrant making a conclusion.

Nobody has overanalyzed anything. All that has been said is that it is sexist to assume that someone ONLY votes for another because of their gender when there no evidence of it being the case. You are the one who keeps bringing random tangential points in an attempt to dismiss arguments, including ad hominem like pointless attacks on my intent as if I'm targeting you or something. This is called a conversation.

I've even attempted to improve upon your viewpoint by saying that it's fine to say that ONE reason Gaga may vote for Hillary is because she is a FEMALE representative who has made a successful career out of advancing WOMEN's and children's rights and those are two issues that Gaga cares deeply about.

Yet you continue to persist in rationalizing your position of judging Gaga as someone who would only vote for someone because of their gender based on dubious circumstantial evidence that you brought up. Feel free to continue doing so.

[Didymus 34,379]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

Well it's great you are admitting your evidence is circumstantial, although one wonders you find that enough to warrant making a conclusion.

My conclusion has always been that we don't know **** and I wish we did.

Anything else is your imagination.

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

Nobody has overanalyzed anything. All that has been said is that it is sexist to assume that someone ONLY votes for another because of their gender when there no evidence of it being the case.

Except I never assumed that and have already repeated over and over again that I don't think Gaga supports Hillary just because she's a woman, hence my desire for more info from her The more she stays silent about it, the more I suspect her reasons are disappointing. And yes I'm perfectly aware that's 100% conjecture, but that's what I would think about any other person too, so I don't think it's that dramatic.

3 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

I've even attempted to improve upon your viewpoint by saying that it's fine to say that ONE reason Gaga may vote for Hillary is because she is a FEMALE representative who has made a successful career out of advancing women's and children's rights and those are two issues that Gaga cares deeply about.

Yet you continue to persist in rationalizing your position. Feel free to continue doing so.

You clearly don't even know my position lmfao

To state it once and for all: I dislike Gaga for exposing her fanbase to mindless Hillary promo when she has never once said a word about her reasons for supporting her. When you throw off-putting hashtags like #HillaryBeOurMama around she gives off the impression she's only voting for her for what I consider the most obvious reasons: that she's a woman and she'd like to see a female with presidential power (as many people do). I, however, realize fully that she'll have more reasons than that, but until she tells us we don't know that, and she obviously knows that too yet continues her awkward silence, which annoys me.

There's no rationalizing of my position going on at all. I know what I said, and I know it wasn't that problematic. Your arguments were piss-poor so far and if you think they'll succeed in making me admit my position was sexist, think again.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

6 minutes ago, Didymus said:

My conclusion has always been that we don't know **** and I wish we did.

Anything else is your imagination.

Sigh..

Your words: Still no good reason to assume Gaga's voting for her for any other reason than that she's a woman.

Your conclusion was that it can be reasonably assumed that Gaga is only voting for her because she's a woman, because apparently you need a good reason to prove otherwise. Apparently you forget your own words. Remarkable.

6 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Except I never assumed that and have already repeated over and over again that I don't think Gaga supports Hillary just because she's a woman, hence my desire for more info from her The more she stays silent about it, the more I suspect her reasons are disappointing. And yes I'm perfectly aware that's 100% conjecture, but that's what I would think about any other person too, so I don't think it's that dramatic.

You clearly don't even know my position lmfao

 Your words: Still no good reason to assume Gaga's voting for her for any other reason than that she's a woman.

6 minutes ago, Didymus said:

To state it once and for all: I dislike Gaga for exposing her fanbase to mindless Hillary promo when she has never once said a word about her reasons for supporting her. When you throw off-putting hashtags like #HillaryBeOurMama around she gives off the impression she's only voting for her for what I consider the most obvious reasons: that she's a woman and she'd like to see a female with presidential power (as many people do). I, however, realize fully that she'll have more reasons than that, but until she tells us we don't know that, and she obviously knows that too yet continues her awkward silence, which annoys me.

Because a Tweet conveys the full extent of her opinion? Why is she expected to elaborate on anything?

Is it so distressing to you that she does not write a thesis every time she states an opinion? It's great that you're annoyed, but as I said to my first response, she owes you nothing so to be pestered about it is pointless especially when it's none of your business.

6 minutes ago, Didymus said:

There's no rationalizing of my position going on at all. I know what I said, and I know it wasn't that problematic. Your arguments were piss-poor so far and if you think they'll succeed in making me admit my position was sexist, think again.

Well we all have our faults. Circumstantial evidence shows that yours apparently is the incapacity to reform your opinion upon learning new information. You haven't given me any other reason to assume otherwise.

[Didymus 34,379]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

Sigh..

Your words: Still no good reason to assume Gaga's voting for her for any other reason than that she's a woman.

Your conclusion was that it can be reasonably assumed that Gaga is only voting for her because she's a woman, because apparently you need a good reason to prove otherwise. Apparently you forget your own words. Remarkable.

That's not what I meant and I already told you over and over again. If you don't wanna believe me, fine, but until you're gonna say you reject my own interpretation of my own post I am gonna keep replying because you're just misrepresenting my own words for over two pages now.

My conclusion was that it's not unreasonable or sexist to assume Gaga's voting for her because she's a woman (and I explained why I personally thought that was a possibility, based on what you called circumstantial evidence, which I admit - because we don't know anything else) based on what she's telling us, which is nothing. Which is why I'd like her to state her reasons.

Take it seriously for just a few seconds and you'll see how that meaning is possible in the context of my original post. Then decide if you believe that's what I meant or not, that's your own decision, and no, I don't care to hear it.

3 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

It's great that you're annoyed, but as I said to my first response, she owes you nothing so to be pestered about it is pointless.

I know it is and we've already dealt with that topic. I was just expressing my annoyance in passing, trust me, it's not something that keeps me from sleeping at night. A simple wish that I don't expect to be granted.

You care more about my own opinion about this than me, that's for sure.

If anything is pointless it's you nagging at me in this thread and others as if I care about anything you have to say to me. I'm only engaging in this "conversation" because you seem to have a mission to deliberately misinterpret and misrepresent my posts. It already started from the beginning with your fantasy of me supposedly stating I think Gaga owes me something (which you then had to painfully admit I never stated indeed, and off you went on the sexist angle 'cause you couldn't let go and move on).

5 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Well we all have our faults. Yours apparently is the incapacity to reform your opinion upon learning new information. All good. 

I don't need to reform my opinion when no good arguments are offered that demand such an action. You spent more time trying to disqualify my entire stance than trying to offer "new information". If that information was that I was being sexist then I know I've done my part in rejecting that interpretation with solid arguments.

You sit on a ****ing pedestal all the time around here. You claim you have nothing but respect for me, but then you continue to blast me for my opinions and the way I present them, even though it's clear you're not trying to understand me in the first place. And then come the personal insults flying again.

I have no problem reforming my opinion and admitting I was mistaken on this forum, as many people well know. But it's beyond clear I made more of an effort to have a conversation than you did. When I brought arguments, you brought lazy dismissals.

I offered my stance in clear language in my earlier post, take it or leave it.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 minutes ago, Didymus said:

*snip*

And I reformed your opinion to put it in less sexist context. 

Stop trying to defend it.

Honestly your entire post screams lack of a basic understanding of what sexism is or what it implies.

You think it's innocuous to think that a woman is so shallow as to only vote for another woman because she has given you no other reason when you have NO context?

No all you're trying to do is stick to your fortified impenetrable rationalized opinion and have not even bothered to address the unfortunate implications your opinions have while continuously attacking my intentions in every post as if that's relevant.

The only "insult" I have so far said to you was that you had a sexist viewpoint. The mere fact that you fail to separate your opinion from your person tells me everything I need to know about how your thought process works. You're so proud that you can't conceive the idea that perhaps your opinion may be wrong. If I seem that way, it's because I never post assumptions without any factual evidence.

Also don't play the card that you don't care. That you've responded so vehemently says that you do, and if you play it as not caring about what I think but what others think, then it's the definition irony because then it implies you do care what others think.

 

[Didymus 34,379]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

You think it's innocuous to think that a woman is so shallow as to only vote for another woman because she has given you no other reason?

How many ****ing times do I have to repeat I don't think Gaga is supporting Hillary only for that reason (and even if she was, I already literally said I wouldn't think that was wrong) Like I'm sure I said it at least 4x by now.

You're still fighting this phantasm of what you thought my very first post meant, ignoring everything that came after it. It's actually baffling.

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

No all you're trying to do is stick to your fortified impenetrable rationalized opinion and have not even bothered to address the unfortunate implications your opinions have.

I have. Stop trying.

4 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

The only "insult" I have so far said to you was that you had a sexist viewpoint. The mere fact that you fail to separate your opinion from your character tells me everything I need to know about how your thought process works.

"Well we all have our faults. Yours apparently is the incapacity to reform your opinion upon learning new information. All good."

That is a personal attack, no question. And it's not the first one. Don't forget that in another thread you questioned my intelligence and assumed (funny in this context) that I was just flat out lying to bring some spice to the thread. Those aren't responses to someone's opinion. It's having zero respect for your conversation partner. Especially here where you're simply denying the legitimacy of the meaning of my own post.

7 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Also don't play the card that you don't care. That you've responded so vehemently says that you do, and if you play it as not caring about what I think but what others think, then it's the definition irony because then it implies you do care what others think.

I've responded so vehemently because, like I said, you seem to be on a mission to drag me into discussions that take my original post to a whole new unintended galaxy just to be able to dismiss my intelligence.

I've never said I don't care about what others here think, I've said I don't care about what you think. I don't like to be misunderstood by people I didn't have the chance to talk to, and I don't like the idea that they read your posts as an accurate reflection of my intentions (i.e. I'm convinced Gaga is only supporting Hillary because she's a woman, even though I repeated I don't at least five times), because it's clearly not.

If there's any display of the definition of irony it's you dissing me for supposedly mistaking a simple tweet for a full-fledged opinion, while you're still clinging to your pitiful interpretation of two sentences I wrote pages ago, despite me attempting to clarify what I said in the clearest language possible repeatedly. You're not listening to me, so I would genuinely prefer it if you just wouldn't quote me with this kind of bs in the future (and I'm sure it's not the first time I'm asking you that). If you're that repeatedly unimpressed by the way I think then that shouldn't be such a hard challenge.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

15 minutes ago, Didymus said:

 

"Well we all have our faults. Yours apparently is the incapacity to reform your opinion upon learning new information. All good."

That's in insult?

I'm using circumstantial evidence. My assumption must be true or at the very least reasonable according to your logic, because you have not given me a reason otherwise.

 

[Didymus 34,379]

14 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

That's in insult?

I'm using circumstantial evidence. My assumption must be true according to your logic.

First of all: how lazy is that. Perfect display of the dynamic here.

Second of all (referring to what I bolded): here's some portions of my posts you might like to re-read -

"I'm not claiming that's the truth, but I can only judge from what I've been given and that's what I got."

"entirely my opinion and I explicitly presented it like that"

"just my own personal irrelevant opinion and I'm not in any way saying it's more than that."

"just my own personal theory and no one needs to agree with me on that"

"I never pretended my opinion was more than that"

"I'm perfectly aware that's 100% conjecture"

My only logic is that until Gaga opens up about her support for Hillary, there's no way to know why she's doing it, and the longer she keeps silent about it and posts **** like #HillaryBeOurMama the more I will assume her reasons aren't impressive and are probably predictable (just like I would assume that about anyone voting for whatever candidate), most of all because she very well knows the effect her silence has and how many of her fans are disagreeing with her position.

But even with that personal opinion (which I have repeated countlessly was just my opinion with no real basis), the actual core of my post was that I wish we had more information because until she tells us more we don't know anything and we can only guess based on, indeed, probably circumstantial evidence, which includes the fact that many women feel genuinely obliged/inspired to vote for Hillary as a symbol for female empowerment.

Ugh, whatever. If anyone doesn't get my stance now after I've explained it over and over again since god knows what page they're never going to.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

4 minutes ago, Didymus said:

*snip*

So your only defense is that it's an opinion? Are opinions only supposed to be insurmountable and off limits to criticism? In fact opinions are the only things you can debate. What are you trying to say here?

In fact my entire argument is that your opinion was formed from sexist context. Why would I not be criticizing your opinion when that's what I've been presenting? 

----

What's most odd of all is that you think it is insulting for me to make an assumption on your judgment based on circumstantial evidence in this thread (or elsewhere), while not seeing that it would just as insulting when you apply it to Gaga, especially when both of these statements are assumptions about thought process.

In fact many of your posts have been littered with hypocrisies that I have not addressed because I'm sticking to the point while you continued to try to bash my intent for apparently choosing to have a discussion with you, one that I now regret as a tremendous waste of time given that you haven't shown an inkling of compromise.

[Chuckles 2,549]

I can't at all the essays! What is hapenning? I'm ok she supports Hilary but that hashtag is extremeley cringe-worthy.

[Didymus 34,379]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

So your only defense is that it's an opinion?

Against this: "My assumption must be true according to your logic."

Yes. That's not my logic.

Once again you rip one of my posts out of its context (the context which is: you making an unwarranted judgment about me/my opinion and me replying to it with an argument, which you ignore in favor of swinging at me from an unrelated angle again) so you don't have to face the fact that you've been proven wrong about something.

3 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

What's most odd of all is that you think it is insulting for me to make an assumption on your judgment based on circumstantial evidence in this thread (or elsewhere), while not seeing that it would just as insulting when you apply it to Gaga, especially when both of these statements are assumptions about thought process.

If Gaga saw my post and was offended and took a swing at me I would understand her opinion perfectly (just like I, don't forget, told you explicitly I understood exactly where you came from but I just disagreed with your statement about there being sexist logic in my original statement) and if she would state her actual reasons for supporting Hillary I would accept them and revise my opinion.

The difference is that we've been in a page-long "conversation" in which I have repeated over and over again what I meant with my statement (in contrast to how you interpreted it), and you're still dismissing it. If I accused someone of making a statement that I thought was made with ill will towards me, and that person would clarify that they didn't mean to offend me in any way (just like I repeated over and over that I didn't want to denigrate Gaga in any way) I would absolutely take back my accusation. In fact, this happened just yesterday with lego

But you won't accept me explaining my point of view even when I've tried to present it as clearly as possible. You're still claiming I'm saying things which I have already shown I haven't, such as that I'm saying Gaga is only voting for Hillary because she's a woman (something I've been rejecting from the very beginning of this mess). That's not the same. So no. That doesn't work. It was well thought of though. I almost thought you had me.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

3 minutes ago, Didymus said:

*snip*

You spend half your posts attempting to rationalize how I'm seeing things as opposed to discussing your position. Don't notice that?

You don't have to say it literally. It's implied in your post.

"Still no good reason to assume Gaga's voting for her for any other reason than that she's a woman."

The only good reason is that she's voting for her because she's a woman.

That's the only acceptable reason you found so you assumed it's the correct assumption to take.

You repeatedly defend that it's reasonable to assume this, when it's not. It's sexist because it assumes a demographic will always support members of the same demographic because they are not intelligent enough to form an opinion from other context. End of story. I'm not going to write a wall of text to point out the obvious anymore.Take it as you will.

[i medici 1,746]

cackling at this discussion 

[Didymus 34,379]

2 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

You spend half your posts attempting to rationalize how I'm seeing things as opposed to discussing your position. Don't notice that?

Re-read everything. Seriously.

And I cannot at you still claiming you get my own post better than I do. I've explained my pov countless times now, so there's really no point in letting this continue.

For the sake of casual thread readers, I just won't reply to your quotes anymore from this point onwards, how 'bout that.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

24 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Re-read everything. Seriously.

And I cannot at you still claiming you get my own post better than I do. I've explained my pov countless times now, so there's really no point in letting this continue.

For the sake of casual thread readers, I just won't reply to your quotes anymore from this point onwards, how 'bout that.

Your point of view insists that this assumption is not sexist when it is, is it not? What do you think I've been arguing here? What have you been defending?

During the last few posts you've been trying to spin it as me saying you meant it as fact or something. Stop misdirecting. Read your own posts. Seriously.