Comments by "VColossalV" (@VColossalV) on "Vivek Ramaswamy: Full interview on wokeness, Trump conspiracies, trans rights" video.

yes because being a Trump sycophant is such an intellectual pursuit
19
@patrickhall6627 You came in hot, saying someone is intellectually lazy right out of the gate, I don't interpret that as steel manning your opponent, so thanks for enforcing the inverse you speak of. My response was essentially pointing out that it's not exactly an intellectual endeavour to suck up to daddy don. What context do you think it would be appropriate to call someone a sycophant?
13
@ordoabchao4202 David just let him talk, it's not a debate, it's an interview. Odd how many of Viveks followers are actually praising David here for letting him speak and not debating every point.
6
@patrickhall6627 You're not even the OP, didn't even notice, which makes this whole thing even stranger. I don't see any criticism put to him, for making such an uncharitable statement in the first place. Only me, for returning the favour to them, and pointing out that it's not exactly intellectual to be constantly playing defence for Trump, possibly due to a political calculation, since at this point it's political suicide to go against him in the primary. That, would make him a sycophant, there's your context, though I thought it was obvious. Do I know this beyond any reasonable doubt? No. But I'm sure there's many inferences you've made about politicians without absolute certainty.
4
@AndrewQuiroz24 I'm sure that's a very comforting thought, but these are talking points he is familiar with. I assure you, he was not stunned into silence and blinded by his majesty.
2
@jonathananaya Finish what job? More multi billion dollar weapons deals for the Saudi's? Expelling and deporting all communists from the country (yay freedom)? Finally criminalizing flag burning? Which of these should he be taking notes about?
2
@AndrewQuiroz24 We already know his stance on these issues, it's a fair thing to ask considering certainly not all republicans agree with the claim the election was stolen, you act like the whole party is in lock step over this issue, they aren't. Mike Pence was part of that administration and he knows it wasn't. Vice President no less. He refused to overturn the results of the election as was asked of him. Someone can have their views but still allow the other person to talk and interview them, get them on the record.
1
@Halberider that's certainly one interpretation, not sure how that works
1
@Boblib1970 am I too nice?
1
@patrickhall6627 You're missing the point. You did not criticize the OP and their original comments, despite the fact they were the ones that called David intellectually lazy. Yeah, I will return the favour, with a smile on my face. You chose to ignore their comment and not criticize that at all. Speaking of steel manning our opponents, only 4 months ago you left a comment claiming that David blames victims of shootings for not praying enough, that's certainly not what he has ever claimed or believed, that should be obvious. Indeed he made a separate video specifically about the absurdity of this claim. Not so charitable, are we. I can't imagine a more uncharitable way of interpreting what he said, it's certainly nowhere near being a charitable interpretation. I think it's quite likely that you didn't criticize the OP for their "intellectually lazy" statement because you already don't like David. "Vivek is literally running AGAINST him" That does not mean he is actively attacking Trump, because that would indeed be political suicide, which is the obvious point here. With Pence, I'll give him at least some credit for actually hitting Trump on certain issues. Even DeSantis. "Defending a person is completely valid, if you can explain why it's valid to do so" By this logic absolutely nobody can ever use the word sycophant, since it seems that according to you it requires proof beyond any reasonable doubt that someone is acting in bad faith, this is simply not possible and never will be. I can not know someone's true thoughts and motives, I can only examine their behaviour, in this case, doing everything an actual sycophant would do. I am absolutely going to call someone a sycophant is they fail to mention a single bad thing the other person has done or is doing. If he's on the record criticizing anything about Trump, now that would be different, perhaps I missed that.
1
@AuraysTimelessChannel I wouldn't go that far
1
@matthews7805 and the original post wasn't? Try again.
1
@patrickhall6627 Uh, I think there's some confusion, you might want to read my last comment again, I did not repeat that statement. "I didn't criticize him for calling Pakman intellectually lazy, because I agree with the opinion" Right, just as I suspected. Not exactly the most charitable way to interpret this interview, especially considering he largely did not engage with much of what he said much at all, instead actually doing what you're supposed to do in an interview. A little pushback is expected, but he certainly could have been much more aggressive. You have no right to tell anyone else that they strawman their opponents, lets not talk about that 4 month old comment you made about David. "He clearly would be better off if Trump wasn't running" Yeah, no shit. To my point, it turns out Trump has a sort of cult-like following and a firm grasp on a decent percentage of voters, so it's not a great idea to piss them all off. The candidates that go hard on Trump will attract the "never Trump" Republicans, that's about it. At the very least, if he sucks up to Trump, he might get at least some of the people who would vote for him, just not the die-hards. This isn't an uncommon or unheard of political calculation. DeSantis really tries to avoid hitting Trump, if Trump didn't constantly attack DeSantis then it probably wouldn't even mention his name.
1
@patrickhall6627 "Vivek explained in detail what he meant with that comment, and I think he is correct. That in no way proves me to be uncharitable. " I'm talking about you believing David to be intellectually lazy. Unless Vivek actually said this, perhaps I missed that part. If he didn't, then you're confusing things. That's not particularly charitable, especially considering the comments are actually filled with Vivek fans that are praising David for choosing not to push back on everything. Now they are being charitable. "You mentioning it (whatever it even is, not that it is relevant to anything we've discussed here) is you talking about it, by definition." Did you not read the comment? The one I left 4 days ago? I mentioned that you left a comment 4 months ago saying that Dave was blaming shooting victims for not praying enough. That's not only uncharitable that's potentially dishonest, both of us must know that he did not mean that. This is, at the very least, extremely uncharitable and the opposite of steel-manning. I would otherwise not bring it up, but you were the one trying to take the moral high ground. "For example, you have said any defense of Trump is sycophantic." No, I did not say that. Even I've defended Trump, certainly not something I do often. "I think the most die hard of Trump supporter would vote for Desantis, or Vivek, or just about anyone over Biden" I'm not talking about the general, I'm talking about the primary. Attacking the guy who's leading the primary by 30+ points and will very quickly attack back with fury, is probably the only strategy that gives you a shot, perhaps not now, but in the future. He pisses his base off now, and say goodbye to any chances in the future. Why do you think DeSantis resisted for so long, it was only when Trump just non-stop hammered him that he was forced into pushing back even mildly. "Your last point is a description of political calculation, which is not sycophancy
1
@patrickhall6627 You know exactly what it says, you specifically said that he's "blaming the victims for not praying enough". That is not a charitable interpretation. That is not steel-manning, that's why I mentioned it. No moral high ground for you. No interpretation should lead you to that conclusion, you could say that he was saying it's odd that it happened at a Christian school (thus we need more than just prayers), that's the least charitable but still viable interpretation, but what you can't say is that he blamed it on the victims, he of course did not blame it on the victims, that's certainly the opposite of a steelman, that is a strawman. Want to mention here why he had to delete the tweet? Because the entire right came down on it with a fury and ended up having family members getting random people contacting them and even death threats. That is why he deleted it. "I'd sincerely love to see any example of a person genuinely saying a school shooting occurred because there wasn't enough prayer" Right wing politicians say all the time that no God in schools is the issue. It is not uncommon. So this phenomena is probably what motivated him to tweet that. Perhaps it is not the fault of a Godless school system.
1
@patrickhall6627 I'm gonna reply to both comments in this one. "I continue to see your responses showing no charity, while accusing me of the same. " The entire reason I flipped it back on you, was specifically because you started accusing me of being uncharitable, so what I did was show how hypocritical it is. Your claim about David is far less charitable than me calling a politician a sycophant. You didn't say he blames Christians (which is still wrong), you said he blames the VICTIMS. "Steelmanning his comments would not lead anyone to conclude he's targeting politicians with his comments. He mentions Christians, and the Christian school" That's literally what I said, read the comment again. It is essentially a retort of the fairly common argument made by religious right-wing politicians, who say that Godless schools/nation are the reason for school shootings. So in a sense, it is also about Christianity, but not BLAMING it, that makes no sense. This is once again, not what you said, you specifically said that he was "blaming the victims for not praying enough" - that is 10 steps further. He is not blaming the victims for not praying enough. He doesn't fucking believe in prayer. He was not in any capacity blaming the victims of the shooting, that much is a fact. You keep dodging this, and pretending we're talking about you claiming that he's blaming Christians or Christianity, when you specifically said VICTIMS. It's still worth mentioning that it makes absolutely no sense to blame Christianity or Christians, what would that even mean? That it's the prayer that caused it to happen? That a Christian did the shootings? What on earth would blaming the shootings on Christianity/Christians mean? He doesn't believe in God or prayer! It's saying that clearly, prayer doesn't help, and being Godless isn't the problem, so *do more than just pray*. That is not blaming people. "It was a Christian school, so even if this was true (which it's not, who's ever said a school shooting occurred because there wasn't enough prayer?) it wouldn't apply to this situation." What do you mean it doesn't apply? His point is that some religious politicians have said that shootings happen because the nation and schools are Godless, and David's point was that clearly it has nothing to do with that, because look what just happened, a Christian school got shot up, therefore being Godless has nothing to do with it like many claim. Do you understand now? You don't have to agree with it. Just understand it. I don't know how you can deny that they say this. What rock have you been hiding under? The religious right says this *all the time*, Pat Robertson said shit like this every other day! It's fairly common to see the religious right claim that school shootings are occurring with greater frequency because the nation and schools are Godless. Hence David's tweet essentially pointing out that this cannot be true, based on that shooting. "Vivek is sucking up to Trump, so he's a sycophant, but that's actually just a campaign strategy, which wouldn't make it sycophantic" Are you reading my responses all the way through? I answered this, yes, sucking up to the big dog because you know there's consequences, is absolutely sycophant behaviour. Avoiding saying a single negative thing because you know the nature of Trump and how vengeful he is, and what that will do to you, makes you a fully fledged sycophant. You fear the consequences of speaking negatively and so you don't. Like I said before, there's no way to peer into someone's mind and prove what someones motives are, and I don't need to. I called a politician a sycophant, who gives a fuck. "even though he would be MUCH better off without Trump in the primary" You're missing the point, attacking Trump annihilates his chances at being elected not just in 2024, but at any point in the future, game over. Trump has too large a grip on the party. At least if he plays footsies with Trump and doesn't say anything bad about him, he has a chance in 2028. Trump is far too vicious and vengeful to get on his bad side, look at what happened in 2016 to anyone who squared up to him, they all got eviscerated. That's his ball game. Even DeSantis when he was leading in the polls wasn't doing that, until Trump came at him full force and he had to retaliate, and now, DeStantis is NOWHERE. Trump tore him apart. "Seriously, why wouldn't he want Trump gone?" That's the point! He would want Trump gone, because it means he could win, but you know what doesn't make him gone? Attacking him. The only person who loses if he goes on the attack is Vivek. Hence the sycophant behaviour. It doesn't work. Remember the 2016 republican primary. Where's little Marco now? Where's lyin' Ted (he's definitely a sycophant)? Low energy Jeb? All destroyed. Trump loves his ego being stroked, but you know what happens if you come at him. You lose. "That is significantly more indicative of his genuine feelings that this is wrong, more than simply being a sycophant." So sycophants don't do things to appease their daddy and get on their good side? To prevent Trump from going at him like he does with DeSantis? What on earth are you talking about?
1
@patrickhall6627 "I think you could not have tried harder to misinterpret what I said. Beyond the fact that I have addressed the "blaming the victims" part, in detail" There is no explanation which justified this. "Almost as horrible as blaming the victims for not praying enough". I cannot highlight those words more clearly than I have. You specifically used the word VICTIMS. He is blaming the VICTIMS for "not praying enough". First, he doesn't believe in prayer, so not only is he not blaming the victims for the shooting, he's not blaming Christians in general either. You have yet to explain how it's even possible that he could mean that, once again he doesn't believe in God, he doesn't believe in prayer. So it makes absolutely zero sense to claim that he's blaming the victims or even Christians in general, for not praying hard enough. That makes negative sense. He's very obviously making a point. That it turns out Godlessness clearly isn't the issue, as many on the religious right claim. It's not just directed at politicians, but anyone who believes that prayer helps or lack of God causes it. You might not agree with it, you could argue it's insensitive, but what you can't do is say that he's blaming the victims or indeed anyone else, because that's certainly not the case. "The politicians who would say that, would be referring to PUBLIC schools, it would not make sense saying that about a Christian school." Exactly! Which is why David is pointing at the absurdity of the suggestion that prayer does help, because a Christian school being shot up clearly indicates that it doesn't work. It's saying, "hey people who believe prayer prevents shootings, look at how useful this prayer is in this instance." It's unbelievably simple to understand, I can't believe I've had to lay it out again. This brings me back to your hypocrisy, even if there were alternate meanings for his statement (there isn't) - you are still choosing the least charitable one, and one that doesn't even make sense. It would make no sense for him to blame the victims OR Christians/Christianity for a shooting - he is an Atheist. He is very obviously, making a point. Not blaming any person for the shooting. "I honestly don't know what more to say about Vivek and Trump here." Correct. There isn't much more to say about it, because my previous comment pretty much hammers home the point perfectly. Trump has annihilated anyone who has ever squared up to him in a primary. Conversely Trump is a fan of people who are a fan of him, who are on his "side". Attacking him will not achieve what he wants. He of course wants to win, to be on the throne, that's why he's running to be president. I can respect Chris Christie at least for actually squaring up, even though he's never going to win. "You can't even conceive of another possible reason for why he would file the lawsuit." Like I said, I can't peer into someone's mind and know their true intentions and motives, but it is quite telling when someone quite literally wont say a single bad thing about Trump. Doing favours for Daddy, and also say nothing bad about him ever. If it's a random person doing this, it's more likely to be genuine adoration, but he's running against him. Lets just say he's inseparable from an actual sycophant, there is no discernible difference. Maybe it's the smart play, like I said, he knows what happens to people who square up to Daddy.
1
@patrickhall6627 I do keep condemning the words you used, because you explicitly stated that he's blaming people, specifically the victims. But even if you did in an alternate reality mean Christians in general, it still doesn't work. I only mentioned this because it is indeed doing the opposite of what you were so heavily advocating for, steel-manning, I probably wouldn't have mentioned it were it not for the fact that you had a go at me for not doing that, when yours is far less charitable. I redefine my sycophant statement and instead of sycophant I actually meant the reverse of that, Vivek truly is a principled individual, that's what I meant. Checkmate.
1
Many politicians are very good at word salad. Obama was good at this, coming off as deep and articulate. Doesn't mean they're right.
1
it was an interview, not a debate.
1
it's an interview, not a debate. Your obsession with Hunter's penis is telling
1
@candorsspot2775 this is an interview with a presidential candidate, not a debate. These are not talking points he is unfamiliar with. Pray tell what happened during the pandemic, when Trump gave Fauci a platform, personally takes all the credit for the vaccine, and locked down the entire country? You claim to be against all of these things yet attribute none of it to daddy Don or some kind of amnesia has occurred here. Pray tell how this retelling of the pandemic is in his favour.
1