02-25-2017, 03:35 PM
(02-25-2017, 02:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course there was a claim. If you don't want to own it that speaks to your integrity, not my lack of understanding definitions.
Folks often use parady to support a claim they have made.
Sorry Bfine but you are having some difficulty with definitions here.
I make a post parodying the right-wing rush to judgment and generalization of responsibility to all members of a class, which follows commonly follows terror attacks. http://www.mediaite.com/election-2016/before-authorities-announce-cause-of-plane-crash-trump-tweets-terrorism/
Someone who "got" the parody would see instantly that I am flipping the right wing shibboleths that "all Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims" and "liberals are afraid to say radical Islamic terrorism." I suppose there is an implicit claim that right wingers do that.
But you say it "speaks to my integrity" if I don't then produce "evidence" for a parody of people generalizing without evidence, thereby mistaking figural speech for literal.
This sudden and selective interest in "integrity" from a Trump defender is surprising. Wait. No it's not.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)