Left-Wing Eco Terrorist Takes Hostages at Discovery Building

[maxcok]

Tim McVeigh was a right-wing conservative.

Ted Kaczynski was a left-wing liberal.

Pretty simple, ain't it?

*chaws and spits*

 

[B_OtterJoq]

Oh no, it's baaaaack. Can't wait for the mindless repetitions to resume. :rolleyes2:

Also there ^ is another contender for most ironic statement. Wow, they're really piling up.

Yes, that's exactly what we'd be saying.

Oh crap, you got us there. Okay, we confess. We own this gun-toting nutjob. HAHA

"James J. Lee, who was protesting what he said was the network's promotion of overpopulation, was fatally shot by police after taking three people captive at the company headquarters in Maryland. He said the network and its affiliates should stop "encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants." Instead, he said, it should air "programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility."

"NO MORE BABIES! Population growth is a real crisis," he wrote.

"I want Discovery Communications to broadcast on their channels to the world their new program lineup and I want proof they are doing so," he wrote. "I want the new shows started by asking the public for inventive solution ideas to save the planet and the remaining wildlife on it."

Discovery Channel hostage crisis ends with gunman's death : LA Times‎​

Ding, ding, ding. And we have a winner folks. There it is. Most ironic statement of the decade!!!

Marry me, Max!

 

[vince]

Soooo disingenuous.

you KNOW if this was a right wing looney instead of a left wing looney you and your bunch would be calling a typical right wing person - the right wing is dangerous - the right wing needs to be shut down blah blah blah.

But NOOOooooo you guys own this nut job and now it's....oh no....he is just crazy he isn't a left wing. He is not one of US......

HA.

Glad no one got killed but him.

Anyways. You lefties are dangerous...

Did you read the link? The whole rant is un-hinged. He's all over the map my friend.

For example... "Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that."

^Left wing? Okaaay.

WingNut more like.

 

[HazelGod]

Ding, ding, ding. And we have a winner folks. There it is. Most ironic statement of the decade!!!

What was ironic about it?

 

[maxcok]

What was ironic about it?

What's ironic is that conntom, who has mindlessly and incessantly repeated the rhetoric of the corporate sponsored teabaggers in this forum, that we need to "take the country back" from the Communist/Socialist agenda of Obama and Pelosi, while referencing constitutional authority they are entirely ignorant of, fueled by Faux News propagandists, all of whom would ultimately be satisfied having this country ruled by right-wing minority tyranny completely at odds with the democratic principles this nation is built on - that he would predictably and ironically say this:

Anyways. You lefties are dangerous...

Capiche? It was better before I had to explain it. :rolleyes2:

 

[maxcok]

Marry me, Max!

I would definitely consider that. What kind of ring did you get me?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I would definitely consider that. What kind of ring did you get me?

A cock ring, obviously!!! :biggrin:

 

[HazelGod]

What's ironic is that conntom, who has mindlessly and incessantly repeated the rhetoric of the corporate sponsored teabaggers in this forum, that we need to "take the country back" from the Communist/Socialist agenda of Obama and Pelosi, while referencing constitutional authority they are entirely ignorant of, fueled by Faux News propagandists, all of whom would ultimately be satisfied having this country ruled by right-wing minority tyranny completely at odds with the democratic principles this nation is built on - that he would predictably and ironically say this:


Capiche? It was better before I had to explain it. :rolleyes2:

Sì, capisco perfettamente. Apparentemente, non si capisce.

The only irony demonstrated above is in your description. Irony occurs whenever an event results in, or a principal behaves in a manner opposite that which would be expected based on what you know of it. One cannot simultaneously act both predictably and ironically.

His statement could be characterized as an illustration of hypocrisy from your point of view, but there was absolutely nothing ironic about it.

 

[maxcok]

Sì, capisco perfettamente. Apparentemente, non si capisce.

The only irony demonstrated above is in your description. Irony occurs whenever an event results in, or a principal behaves in a manner opposite that which would be expected based on what you know of it. One cannot simultaneously act both predictably and ironically.

His statement could be characterized as an illustration of hypocrisy from your point of view, but there was absolutely nothing ironic about it.

Referencing your definition: I said his statement was ironic; I did not say the "act" of expressing it was ironic. Your attempt to cast his statement of belief and the act of expressing it as synonomous and 'simultaneous' is illogical at best.

The fact that such statements from him are 'predictable' (illustrating the 'foolish consistencies' referenced in my signature) is entirely separate from and has no bearing whatsoever on the essential irony embodied in his statement and embodied in his belief. (I have already explained why his statement is reflective of a belief which conforms exactly to your definition of irony, so please refer to my previous post if unclear.)

To put it simply, what he says is ironic, that he said it is predictable. They are two entirely separate things.
In other words, there are people who predictably make ironic statements. Capisce ora?

I don't view his statement as hypocrisy, since in his mind and in the minds of those who share his ideology I assume they truly believe what they are saying. It would only be hypocrisy if he were consciously espousing something contrary to what he believed.

Surely you understand these distinctions, though it's something of a mystery why out of everything in this thread you could have commented on, this is what you chose to make an issue, and then proceeded to tortuously and unconvincingly dissect.

Unless you are determined to continue your reign as the board's premiere semantic cop and resident contrarian.

 

[maxcok]

A cock ring, obviously!!! :biggrin:

I like that idea. :smile:

Could someone advise me as to proper etiquette involved in wearing engagement cock rings?

 

[HazelGod]

There is nothing ironic in either his statement itself, nor in the fact that he made it. You've been listening to too much Alanis Morissette.

He says that "you lefties are dangerous." You view him and those you liken to him in a similar light and, presuming yourself to be correct, make mockery of the idea that a dangerous person should claim others are dangerous, presumably while being ignorant of his own dangerous nature. Nothing about this fits any definition of irony. NOTHING.

Whenever a person holds one belief that flies in the face of reason or accuses someone of behaving in a manner very similar to their own, that's usually an hypocrisy...perhaps when it's unintentional or ignorant, you might argue that it isn't because hypocrisy presumes intent, and some would agree. To me, that's beside the point. You can call it an inconsistency, or even call it cognitive dissonance. What it isn't, however, is irony.

As to why...let's just say I'm a fan of irony, and this isn't the first time you've erroneously invoked the notion to take a cheap shot at another poster. What you've done here is only the slightest rung on the ladder above calling someone out for a spelling error with a post full of your own grammatical mistakes. You clearly don't understand the concept, even when it's used on you in an obvious manner. Get down off your high horse.

 

[maxcok]

So, I see you have ignored the clear rebuttal to your "simultaneous" argument and are now trying a new tack.

There is nothing ironic in either his statement itself, nor in the fact that he made it. You've been listening to too much Alanis Morissette.

He says that "you lefties are dangerous." You view him and those you liken to him in a similar light and, presuming yourself to be correct, make mockery of the idea that a dangerous person should claim others are dangerous, presumably while being ignorant of his own dangerous nature. Nothing about this fits any definition of irony. NOTHING.

Whenever a person holds one belief that flies in the face of reason or accuses someone of behaving in a manner very similar to their own, that's usually an hypocrisy...perhaps when it's unintentional or ignorant, you might argue that it isn't because hypocrisy presumes intent, and some would agree. To me, that's beside the point. You can call it an inconsistency, or even call it cognitive dissonance. What it isn't, however, is irony.

As to why...let's just say I'm a fan of irony, and this isn't the first time you've erroneously invoked the notion to take a cheap shot at another poster. What you've done here is only the slightest rung on the ladder above calling someone out for a spelling error with a post full of your own grammatical mistakes. You clearly don't understand the concept, even when it's used on you in an obvious manner.

There is a popular movement in this country of people who view those "on the left" as a dangerous threat to America, those they call "Lefties", those who actually understand and aspire to uphold the Constitution, the rule of law, and the very principles this nation was founded upon. The ACLU along with "activist judges" are at the top of the right-wing list of those they deem as "un-American".

These "tea party" types claim as their authority a Constitution they are almost universally ignorant of, and they would violate both it and the rule of law in a heartbeat if it served their agenda and their ideology. The fact that their numbers, their visibility, and their political clout is growing does indeed make them a dangerous threat to the Constitution, to the rule of law, to the nation as a whole. I think most reasonable educated people who have paid attention to this growing movement would agree with that assessment.

The clear irony is that the very document they claim as their authority, whose provisions they don't even know, much less understand, is the very Constitution they accuse "the left" of violating. The clear irony is that while they accuse "the left" of destroying the country, they would advance their ideology to undermine the very principles this nation is founded upon. The clear irony is that as they are sounding the alarm about danger from the left, the clear and present danger is in their own ranks. I cannot with assurance call it hypocrisy, because my sense is that many, if not the majority, ignorantly and erroneously believe what they espouse.

I know you are a constitutional scholar and well versed in judicial matters. If you do not recognize the dangerous threat this movement poses and cannot see the irony in an adherent to that ideology saying "Lefties are dangerous", then I can only conclude at this point that you are being willfully disingenuous and/or purposely antagonistic, or your understanding of the concept of irony is so narrowly focused you do not understand any other usage. That's peculiar though, because in this case I would say I am employing the term in its most obvious, popular and common usage. Perhaps you are employing a form of Socratic irony here, I dunno.

I think I already proved my case even by your narrow definition of irony requiring an outcome of "opposites", though a clear incongruity, discordance, or contradiction is enough to satisfy most definitions. If not, here are a range of definitions for your consideration and edification. I have left out some of the more obscure and specialized uses, in literature and drama for example, but there are plenty of links if you would like to investigate further:

Irony (from the Ancient Greek εἰρωνεία eirōneía, meaning dissimulation or feigned ignorance) is a rhetorical device, literary technique, or situation in which there is an incongruity or discordance that goes beyond the simple and evident meaning of words or actions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony
​

1. A statement that, when taken in context, may actually mean something different from, or the opposite of what is written literally; the use of words expressing something other than their literal intention, notably as a form of humor.
​

2. (colloquial) The quality or state of an event being both coincidental and contradictory in a humorous or poignant and extremely improbable way.
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irony

outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected : the incongruity of this.
Irony | Define Irony at Dictionary.com

incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

a situation where something is said but the reader can see a different meaning.
www.oed.com/learning/ks4/notes.html

​

Get down off your high horse.

LOL. Now that's ironic. Or is it hypocritcal? You tell me.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Max, HG, as much as I love a good bit of rampant pedantry myself, is the definition of Irony really apropos?

 

[maxcok]

Max, HG, as much as I love a good bit of rampant pedantry myself, is the definition of Irony really apropos?

No, I would say it is not apropos to the thread, not that the thread was going anywhere at this point anyway. However, I think that question is best posed to the subject who introduced the digression, principal Pedant #1, our chief resident semantic cop. This is not the first time he has taken someone to task for the misuse (in his mind) of the term irony.

Am I allowed to defend myself? I hope I may be excused for the long explanation of why conntom's statement struck me as ironic. I tried a much briefer explanation in my prior post, but HG either failed to grasp it or decided to try another tack to discredit it. I hope I may also be excused for the list of definitions in my last post; I thought it would be helpful to demonstrate that the concept of irony encompasses a much broader field than fits within the single narrow and restrictive definition HG proferred.

It was and is my intention to lay this subject to rest once and for all, lest it continue to be another off-topic discussion in future threads. I apologize if it appears overboard, but sometimes it's best to pull out a big hammer to dispense with the job. I apologize here in advance, because I'm about to do it again. However, I will try not to be overly pedantic in my observations.

(Mea culpa: I should interject here that I am not innocent of pointing out gross grammatical violations myself at times, as I did recently and coincidentally in another thread. For the most part though, I have tried to restrict such judgemental exercises to occasionally observing that the most glaring abuse of the English language seems more often than not to come from those expressing the most unenlightened and uneducated viewpoints, as I said there. I confess that on a few other occasions I've made a similar observation to point out the . . . dare I say, irony . . . when an obviously literacy challenged poster questions the intelligence of another.)

A cursory review of HG's post history reveals a particular fascination with defining the concept of irony for other posters and quite a compulsion for pointing out semantic violations in general. Inexplicably (ironically??) despite his objections, his own use of the term generally parallels the same usage by others. In fact, his usage seems entirely appropriate and, as I already pointed out, generally fits what I believe is the most common usage. Why he then takes such exception to others' use of the term, particularly when it parallels his own, is perplexing to say the least. A random sampling:

It's particularly disturbing / ironic that the shooter is a practicing psychiatrist.

It's fascinating to watch the labels being traded back and forth absent any sense of history or irony.

Violent acts of property destruction are viewed as patriotism through one lens, and as terrorism through another.

Is there really much fundamental distinction between the Weather Underground's bombings and the Boston Tea Party?

The fact is that text is not a transitive verb, regardless of how often it's misused by the intellectually lazy.

That anyone who regularly does so would actually attempt to lecture another on grammatical propriety without choking on the enormous boulder of irony proves my point.

Chagrined is a plenty big enough word on its own without the need to embellish it with superfluous letters...:tongue:

My wife (an English major) and I are both closeted grammar Nazis. We share a particular pet peeve...the almost universal (penuniversal? :wink:) confusion of the masses by the apostrophe. Such a small little symbol to be so very misunderstood. We can never agree which is worse: instances where the apostrophe has been omitted, or instances where it's been included incorrectly.

The true irony, of course, being the fact that my wife is generally a terrible speller... :biggrin1:

Seriously, though...the rules are simple: It shows possession (except for pronouns), and it indicates contractions. IT IS NOT USED FOR PLURALIZATION!

(OK, there's an exception to the pluralization rule...it's acceptable to use an apostrophe when indicating plurality for a single lower-case letter, e.g. minding your p's and q's.)

Mean, perhaps...but I'm never one to bother much with niceties, particularly in the face of what I perceive as ludicrous hypocrisies. I considered the entire presentation amusingly ironic...the self-professed genius holding forth in a condescending triptych of rambling, loosely-structured (to be generous), barely coherent bloviations on the subject. Foolish would be something of an understatement.

Bloviations? (ironic?) Finally, here's one last example, which could hardly be more parallel to my observation of the irony in conntom's statement, even in sentiment and subject matter, the one HG so vehemently objected to me calling ironic and then derided as a "cheap shot":

Ugh. This attitude is a despicable example of the most un-American mentality imaginable. The irony, however, seem lost on those most disposed to voicing it publicly.

Fascinating. I can only conclude that because HG is, as he likes to say, "a fan" of irony (which so far is the primary reason he has given to justify his interpretation of the concept) this somehow grants him the privilege of determining what does and does not constitute irony, almost as if he has a monopoly over its usage - even though he frequently employs the concept in the exact same manner as those he takes to task. Incredible.

Quite by accident, I ran across this from another poster addressed to HG, which I think sums it up neatly. Emphasis added:

In your opinion... far be it from me to imply the height of that high horse you're on appears to have skewed your perception of the written word.

If you were unable to see the frankly obvious parody in what was being said, then I would suggest you have a few more practice rounds at getting to grips with the concept of irony in its many diverse forms.

As for being uncalled for and in poor taste, well, taste is subjective, as is humor. One man's drink is anothers poison, is it not?

You find such parody as disgusting as much as I do insular patriotic zealots with little capacity for argument.

Furthermore, I might suggest to you that taking matters of legitimate hostility and trivialising them for the sake of amusement is one of the major points of parody, irony and sarcasm.

Give Monty Python a miss HG, you wouldn't enjoy it.

Get down off your high horse.

Dare I say it? . . . irony???

A wholly appropriate response, given the lack of maturity or cognitive sophistication in the principal in question.

The irony was far too amusing not to point out.

 

[maxcok]

Anyway, in the spirit of moving the thread back on topic, it's now been four days since the hostage event, and I have a question for the OP. So has it developed into a major political issue yet, or have I missed something?

We all know this is going to be a major political issues on tv, newspapers, and radio in the coming days so this is exactly where this thread belongs.

Really??? Why don't you get back to us when it becomes a "a major political issues" [sic] ?
(not counting the Faux Talk robot heads and Fatass Pillpopper Limbaugh, that is)

 

[willow78]

My goodness! All this discussion on 'irony'. Alanis Morissette would be in tears!

 

[HazelGod]

All that time and effort expended in your amusing ad hominem, yet you still haven't demonstrated at all how conntom's remark constitutes any display of irony.

Dance, monkey...dance, I say!

:lmao:

 

[maxcok]

Not only demonstrated, but proven by your own example, even according to your own narrow definition.

Not accepted by you, naturally. Did you think that was my intention? That would be a fool's errand.

Ugh. This attitude is a despicable example of the most un-American mentality imaginable. The irony, however, seem lost on those most disposed to voicing it publicly.

Deny, Oh Great One, deny!

:notworthy:

 

[KTF40]

Oh man, lot of posts since last time I visited. Aight, I'll try to get this done quick.

People like KTF40 don't seem to understand that there are people who actually like to call the stupid people a variety of colorful and descriptive names when they're adamant in standing their ground after they've been thoroughly debunked.

"OMG, you're name calling!!!!"
Well duh, McFly!! :biggrin:

I've been thoroughly debunked? On what? You're the one who still can't answer my simple request of providing one single republican/conservative who is an environmentalist, peace activist, and a secularist.

wellll.... If you'd stop posting threads that have little to nothing to do with politics, then names wouldn't be thrown around.

BTW Grow up. :tongue:

This does have to do with politics.

BTW instead of bitching at me every single time I post, maybe you should focus on that job search, don't ya think?

Obviously you are not familiar with the Nevada Cattlemen's Association. Almost 100% pure Republican and very conservative. When it comes to the sagebrush steppe, open range, State and National forests they make most Green Peace members look like losers doing a dash and run to avoid paying for a meal in a restaurant. And god forbid you should have any non-native species of wild plants growing on your property. Several times a year they organize public weedings. It's really sort of cute, like a public hanging. Although in many cases their enthusiasm to maintain the flora and fauna is a lost cause. Ask any cattleman (or a guy who runs sheep) and he or she will tell you the miseries of Cheatgrass.

Funny how you didn't mention that any of the "Almost 100% pure Republican and very conservative" are peace activists and secularists. I'm asking for a Republican/conservative that fits all three categories, not one of the three categories.

Three questions, KTF: If you think "secular[ism]" is one of your three identifying "liberal" "left-wing" traits, and you despise liberals and left-wingers, is secularism a trait you object to? Do you think our nation, as in our government and Constitution, are secular or religiously based? What do you think our nation should be in this regard? I'd really like to know where you stand on this.

I only quoted this section of your post because the first part is irrelevant as I've already addressed attempts to make me sound disingenuous in a previous post. Once again, another lpsg member who only bolds/quotes what fits his narrow minded view of what he thinks I'm saying.

And as for the racial stuff and my relationship with black people, not sure why you're so obsessed over that.

To answer you questions though...

Is secularism a trait you object to? Depends on what type of secularism you're referring too. If it's the kind James Lee supports, then yes.

Do you think our nation, as in our government and Constitution, are secular or religiously based? There is more to our nation than just the government and the constitution so this seems like an extremely poorly worded question. However, in a general sense, I would lean more towards secularly based assuming I understand you properly.

What do you think our nation should be in this regard? Generally, what we have been so far seems to be fine.

 

[KTF40]

Anyway, in the spirit of moving the thread back on topic, it's now been four days since the hostage event, and I have a question for the OP. So has it developed into a major political issue yet, or have I missed something?

To be honest, I'm stunned with the lack of coverage over this event. This seems like a perfect incident to point out liberal hypocrisy, but so far conservatives have been silent (except for talk radio of course). I thought for sure Fox would be all over this, but even they've ignored it except for a quick panel discussion on Hannity. I can only assume they are either taking the high ground (I know lol hahaha) or will bring it up if some right-wing loon does something as stupid as James Lee.