Let's Get Rid of the Politics Forum
Because it is a breeding ground for douchebaggery and team hatred.
It makes people I like look like dicks. It spills over into the rest of the house, and sucks in general. Nothing you politics thread posting dickholes says is going to change the mind of the other dickhole you're arguing with's mind in any way....so Shut The Fuck Up and Hug. We are smart enough to know we shouldn't argue about religion......why do you argue about Politics?
This is NOT(or at least didn't used to be) a politics forum. Go scratch that itch somewhere else! This is a coffee shop with no coffee and no shop! It is a Forum about nothing. It's a Pub where your friends hang out......
You might say that I have no right to attempt to limit discussion. you might say that I have no right to tell you what you should discuss. you might say that i have no right to kill a hobo...... but I say unto thee.....
you're all being intolerably irritating.
don't make me post a poll.
shut up. this is serious business
lol
That was so oratorical.
Yeah, you should run for office or something. I'd vote for ya!
Let's change the forum name and forum title from:
Politics
[SIZE="1"]How humans control the powers that control them[/SIZE]
To:
Town Hall Meeting
[SIZE="1"]A friendly little forum, with no town and no hall to get run out of[/SIZE]
I've never been in the politics forum because I fear it would irritate me. Seems like I'm doing the right thing (for me). It's true that sometimes the politics seeps through into other forums but I can usually see which threads are heading that way and I stop reading them, too ...
If we don't have the Politics forum then every forum becomes political:P
you're all being intolerably irritating.
Truth. No-one is learning anything in politics right now, everyone is so convinced that they are right.
One thing I love about this place is that people in the Cellar have sometimes changed my long held political beliefs with their thoughtful posts. Unfortunately, it hasn't happened in about 3 years or so. The politics forum is a big pile of shit now, and it's because the handful of the most prolific posters there have no apparent desire to learn. Who knows? Maybe I'm looking at the past with rose colored glasses. All I know is that I mostly scroll past the posts of the regulars in the politics forums, looking for anything anyone else has to say.
I don't want to be Hubris Boy, and I apologize if I come off that way.
If you want to improve the Politics forum, post there.
Yeah, I know. I've given the same advice to others.
If you want to improve the Politics forum, post there.
I don't want to improve the politics forum.
I don't read it because it's full of crackpot posts, and therefore I avoid most of the assholery over it. This is what I prefer, but some people revel in the assholery and debate, and that's their privilege.
It's a vehicle for the hateful.
The politics forum is what originally brought me to the cellar. While I was usually the only conservative in most of the discussions it was at least fun. The politics threads are generally just annoying anymore.
I wager it'll come around. Things change.
It's a vehicle for the hateful.
quite right.
I read the politics forum when I am looking to get good and annoyed.
I am sorry - I know that I am part of the problem. It has become a clusterfuck and an attack on each others posts, cites, sources and overwhelming personal attacks. I'm trying to take a break so others can hopefully enjoy posting there.
I'm gonna try to keep out.
Maybe there should be a polite and considerate political discussion forum for jsut that. Let the vitriol spewing continue in the politics forum and have another place where people are polite and respectful. [COLOR="LightBlue"]And monkeys will fly out of my ass and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle...[/COLOR]
The politics forum is rather nasty at the moment, but no worse than on any other board. I post there from time to time without the expectation of changing the minds of other posters. It helps me define for myself where I sit on the issues. If you got rid of politics, people who are dying for a fight will just find one on other forums instead.
could we just put an airlock on it? Or a one-way valve of some sort? Or maybe just a decontamination chamber on exit so no-one can bring the shit with them?
I'd be ok with having all political posts limited to video taped youtube orations. that way we could see the veins in their foreheads bulging at least.
I stopped going to the political threads when I got sick of having my principles insulted. Having said that, even the most benign threads have political one-liners woven in them.
If, however, you can't discuss politics or religion, you've limited yourself to mediocrity. Remember the advice, "don't sweat the small shit. P.S. It's all small shit." That's what happens when you limit speech, small shit.
maybe I'll just wade into the politics threads and wreck them with my evil shenanigans
Let me know when you do Jim. It'll be fun to watch.
You'll know because Chuck Norris will be ass raped by Jesus in there
Obviously Jinx will be doing the heavy lifting then.
@ lumberjim (the first Dwellar to greet me in the Cellar way back when).
If you're just venting, disregard the following:
WE don't need no stinkin' Politics forum: we have the capability to start a non-stinkin' Politics social group. Follow UT's modus operandi and start a moderator nomination thread for the person Dwellars would like to see create and moderate the Politics social group. After an ample time period, start a voting thread for Dwellars to choose from among those who have accepted the nomination. Announce the communities choice and let us create our own modus vivendi.
The social group would be able to initiate its own topics for discussion; or, rip off threads from the Politics forum that have turned sour. The additional moderation will keep out the riff raff. Show them how it's done. It's about time someone used the social groups feature for constructive purposes.
Administrator's and Moderators' input welcome.
Isn't this just a microcosm of american culture in the internet age? We can get the news that agrees with our held opinions, so actual research or honest inquiry tends to get short-circuited into some more superficial emotional satisfaction. And anyone can find a semi-credible source to back up just about anything, so all things boil down to a mixture of personal values (what do you think is most important, and what's the best way to get there?) and some debate of whose sources are more credible (which any honest look at requires you to first admit that your sources are not necessarily credible, which takes a fairly serious amount of chutzpah.)
I guess my point is that what we're seeing in Politics here is kind of what we're seeing in culture nation-wide, and, apparently, the light at the end of the tunnel is starting to grow -- there's talk of
the coming "left-right populist revolution" or something to that effect.
So if it is just a microcosm, it's only fair to see it play out: indeed, to try to accelerate it, to find a solution to it here. Because what is the cellar if not sort of a weird petri-dish-kind-of-thing that we can poke and prod, and sometimes get poked and prodded by?
This thread has got political ... yet insightful. Reasonable even. Cept that bit about Chuck Norris.
If you want to improve the Politics forum, post there.
I'm thinking that right now we have a cluster of folks who cannot be talked to. They are better off left alone. After some period of zero participation thoughtful people can work their way back in. For now I'll focus on goats and goat-based products.
The politics thread is as subject to fashions and fads as any of the others. It'll swing back again.
I don't really look at it as 'going into the politics forum'. half the time i don't even notice which forum a thread is in; it's just all in the New Posts category. I do know there are some threads which, though I occasionally skim through to see what they're up to, have become more or less unreadable. But there are usually some interesting little sections of the discussion in amongst the tedium and destruction.
This thread has got political ... yet insightful. Reasonable even. Cept that bit about Chuck Norris.
I think LJ was disappointed to find out that Chuck Norris is a vocal Christian.
I don't avoid political threads; but there are certain dwellars and/or subjects I tend to avoid engaging with at a political, or at a serious level. From time to time I forget I'm avoiding them and get drawn in by my own curiosity. But...at that point I'm often just throwing in the odd double entendre.
I don't really have much of a heart for political discussions here, of late. There's only so much searing anger I can handle at any one time. And the landscape is strewn with boobytraps and populated by wolves, ready to ascend on the unwary who has dared to write their post whilst sitting at the computer, in their pants, eating cereal; thereby falling short of the astounding peer-review quality, properly and exhaustively researched, fully spellchecked political argument we apparently see as a minimum standard.
If I sit round a pub table talking politics with mates, we're not correcting each other's grammar; or demanding we present our findings fully supported and properly referenced. But this seems to characterise much of the political discussion here at the moment. Some of it is justified, some of it is funny, but some of it is petty and not much fun to watch, or get involved in. It's like there's some hidden rule which states that, the second a topic becomes political, people start sharpening their weapons.
It's like, in the big online games, there's often a separate arena area where players can take their avatars and beat the shit out of each other with gay abandon. Normal game rules are suspended. The politics forum seems to have morphed into a free for all arena. Which occasionally then spills into the rest of the forums. Some of the stuff people say to each other once a thread has become political in nature, just bypasses anything approaching civility.
The politics forum is a big pile of shit now, and it's because the handful of the most prolific posters there have no apparent desire to learn.
Appreciate all through history, you post demonstrates why extremists are so successful. By making things nasty, those who learn from intelligent thought zone out. And those inspired mostly by the hype of the attack are empowered.
Limbaugh taking constant cheap shots at Hilary only inspired his disciples. Others zoned out leaving the field dominated by those disciples. And made so many others emotionally dislike Hilary. How to above the nastiness? Avoid Hilary. Emotionally associate Hilary with the nastiness. Cheap shots and insults (unfortunately) tend to get many or most to believe the attacker.
For example, why did Saddam have WMDs? Because cheap shots, lies, and emotional diatribes *proved* he was evil. Fact that Saddam was desperately trying to restore his “American ally” standing somehow got completely buried in hype, hate, and overt lies. Therefore Saddam must have attacked the WTC. Even when numbers said Saddam’s WMDs should not exist, still, 70% believed the myth anyway. Because hype and hate combined with overt lies work when others (ie you) do not challenge that 'hate agenda' with rational thought and damning questions.
Why did the KKK have so much sympathy in the old South? Hate, emotion, and popular myths were enough, even among otherwise intelligent people, to sympathize with the KKK.
A perfect example of how easy emotions can inspire lies: surge protectors. Did you assume that protector on your computer power cord does any protection? Why? Or did you ask those damning questions? Did you ask for ‘whys’? No facts say so. No numbers say so. Well proven science says otherwise. And yet an overwhelming majority will buy that protector only because they were told what to believe. Entertained their emotions rather than think logically. Blindly empower liars by simply not learning the difference between emotional hype and logical thought.
Emotion can easily subvert logical thought – especially when one does not always demand/learn fundamental facts. Especially when feeling rather than analyze numbers. Especially when one does not ask and demand answers to damning questions. Especially when conclusions are in black and white rather than based in perspectives.
so, what are you trying to say?
I think LJ was disappointed to find out that Chuck Norris is a vocal Christian.
not disappointed that he is Christian.... That's assumed in the US. Disappointed that he seems rather zealous about his Religion. That's one of my turn offs.
not disappointed that he is Christian.... That's assumed in the US. Disappointed that he seems rather zealous about his Religion. That's one of my turn offs.
Yes. I know.
It doesn't seem as big a deal to me. He hasn't tried to twist my arm yet, so I'm happy he's got something to be passionate about. :D
Not gonna read on the politics forum, in no particular order:
tw, radar, merc, ug, redux & classic.
Now, if I could only get an 'ignore' feature that was politics-specific, all would be fine.
Not gonna read on the politics forum, in no particular order:
tw, radar, merc, ug, redux & classic.
Now, if I could only get an 'ignore' feature that was politics-specific, all would be fine.
Isn't that like...most all that post there?
I make a point of ignoring everything lumberjim posts in the politics forum.
Isn't that like...most all that post there?
Except for me, font of wisdom that Iam. :eek:
not disappointed that he is Christian.... That's assumed in the US. Disappointed that he seems rather zealous about his Religion. That's one of my turn offs.
And he wears a toupee. :right:
Wolf summed it up well;
I am very sorry you guys are scared of people with whom you don't agree.
It's endemic to the forum, regardless of the team.
Naw...Wolf threw out a sophomoric taunt aimed at people who were complaining about someone she agrees (or sides) with. We weren't complaining because we are afraid of him or his position (although, I have to admit people who think like merc does in his posts are dangerous). We were complaining about his incivility.
*shrug*
;)
I think Jinx was handing you a straight-line.
What? I meant exactly what I posted.
I wager it'll come around. Things change.
Eventually all of you will despise Obama as much as we do, and we'll all love one another again.
Common enemies do that to a people.
Naw...Wolf threw out a sophomoric taunt aimed at people who were complaining about someone she agrees (or sides) with.
It was not sophomoric. I have a Master's Degree!!
And it was a general, not specific comment. Jinx is correct.
What? I meant exactly what I posted.
Then Pico missed an excellent opportunity to rebut with a little humor.
"I am very sorry you guys are
scared of people with whom you
don't agree."
"Actually we're not afraid. We don't like his incivility"
"
I disagree"
"And
I ain't skeered".
And.... I've just killed the frog.
Eventually all of you will despise Obama as much as we do...
And that is exactly the problem. You don't just disagree with his philosophy or his proposed legislation, you despise HIM, and by extension everyone who voted for him. Nothing but hate coming from the disloyal opposition.
Because it is a breeding ground for douchebaggery and team hatred.
I used to enjoy participating in some of those intense political debates. I liked learning more about what I was arguing about, while searching for back-up material.
But then a few of the folks would just lose their minds and start flinging too much poo for my taste.
It really wasn't that much fun anymore once the "you're stupid!" or "you're an idiot!" or "shut up you fucking hippie!" or "you are obviously ignorant and let filthy communists fuck you up the ass!' (paraphrased) comments would come into play.
I don't avoid political threads; but there are certain dwellars and/or subjects I tend to avoid engaging with at a political, or at a serious level. From time to time I forget I'm avoiding them and get drawn in by my own curiosity. But...at that point I'm often just throwing in the odd double entendre.
Same here. There's just too much heavy lifting separating the wheat from the chaff. 1 or 2 informative posts on either side of a position mixed in with a dozen 'nyah nyah' posts.
BTW, I've been keeping it a secret until now and it's still in the development stage, but I am working on the world's first triple entendre. Prepare to be amazed.;)
But then a few of the folks would just lose their minds and start flinging too much poo for my taste.
And that was my point when I announced I had had enough and was going nasty. The problem was so many (ie you) condoned the nastiness by remaining quiet. Hitler discovered nastiness works. As long as he made German politics nasty, the majority went silent. Left politics (and government) to be controlled only by extremists.
That is also the political agenda of Limbaugh and Beck. Make things nasty so that centrist and moderate politician lose their primary supporters (due to disgust as being expressed by you).
Because so many (ie a large number of posters in this thread) choose to go quiet (ie leave), then they encouraged nasty extremists to be even nastier.
But then I am only repeating what I posted previously. Do not consider yourself innocent. Silence is how you condone the nastiness.
Hitler discovered nastiness works.
I think there is some sort of law about this type of brilliant argument.
[strike]Hitler[/strike]Newt Gingrich discovered nastiness works.
I think there is some sort of law about this type of brilliant argument.
Fixed it for ya.;)
And that was my point when I announced I had had enough and was going nasty. The problem was so many (ie you) condoned the nastiness by remaining quiet.
So, you want those you fling poo at to fling it back.
That may be how you get your rocks off, but I have better things to do with my time.
Honesty is more important than decorum: one should be able to call somebody a big dic, if that is their opinion of them.
I agree with that. but the incessant repetition is trying.
Honesty is more important than decorum: one should be able to call somebody a big dic, if that is their opinion of them.
It ignores a fundamental fact. An accusation without supporting reasons why is simply an insult. One is expected to always justifiy their conclusions with relevant, supporting facts and numbers.
If you call me wrong and do not say why, then you are (typically) posting insult. If you called me wrong and say why, now a logical discussion exists. One reason why longer posts are so important. And why "cheap shot" posts are so short.
Unfortunately many will see (and therefore believe) the cheap shot. That emotion is why cheap shots work. Important in all discussions - if reasons why are not provided, then that is a poster who is insulting everyone. Too many fail to understand that .... which is why Rush Limbaugh is also so successful.
A ballpark difference between an insult and a logical conclusion. Latter comes with reasons why. Former never provides the always necessary supporting facts.
So you can only call someone a big dic if you have evidence?
Would a photograph do? ;)
ETA: oh yeah, and about that post where you said that if people leave because others are nasty, they're letting them win; I'd like to point out that for one thing, this is just an internet forum. It's unlikely that anyone is going to change their views if they've already resorted to insults and personal attacks.
and for Jumbo; would you like some cheese with your whine?
It's unlikely that anyone is going to change their views if they've already resorted to insults and personal attacks.
Nobody is saying anything about changing views. But when Congress did work, same facts resulting in two completely different conclusions based only upon one difference - perspective. There is no right or wrong. But respect of other conclusions based upon same facts and a different perspective is what discussion is about. A discussion based only in “We want Obama to fail” is not respect for anyone; is just an example of hate.
Throughout history, the way to destroy tolerance and cooperation was to hype only hate. It worked for Hitler - read his book to see why. It worked for Milosevic. It worked for the Hutu extremists to justify the massacre of Tutsis in two nations. It worked because emotion results in black and white conclusions where perspective (and the associated respect) can never exist.
That has happened to American politics. It is not about facts and perspective. Even in the Tea Party, the most popular figures were those who most promote only emotion, insult, and hate - Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity. Now respect for perspective - and even for the facts - no longer exists. True discussion and the resulting respect can never happen.
What did Sharon do to restart the Intifada? Constantly did things (ie walk all over Temple Mount with shoes and a few hundred close friends) only to incite emotion, hate, and extremism. Sharon needed Rabin assassinated and needed the Intifada restarted so that nobody would appreciate any other perspective - so that violence only entrenched extremists. That happens when emotion makes respect for the many perspectives impossible.
The world is not black and white. There is no blind ‘good and evil’. There are perspectives. Unfortunately those perspectives that only promote hate, well, at least we try to understand why they so hate tolerance, compromise, and consensus. They who hate will not. They who hate must subvert discussion so that differing opinions and the resulting diversified society that America strives for can no longer co-exist.
Discussion is not about changing minds. Discussion is about respect for differing opinions based in common facts and a different perspective. Limbaugh, et al is about destroying that just like Sen Joeseph McCarthy did generations previous.
Why was McCarthyism stopped? So many stopped ignoring and therefore encouraging him. The majority simply challenged that extremism. That extremism could only exist when so many zoned out and did nothing. Many who challenged McCarthy even agreed with him. But what turned them again McCarthy - he subverted free, open, honest, and honorable dicussion with cheap shots and insults. Once forced to provide the reason why he knew, well, it was all fiction. Once McCarthy was challenged to provide facts rather than cheap shot accusations - once discussion was possible, then McCarthy was done.
If you call me wrong and do not say why, then you are (typically) posting insult. If you called me wrong and say why, now a logical discussion exists.
Although we enjoy logical discussion, there is no need for all posts to be logical discussion. If I think somebody is a big dic, and say so, I am posting an opinion. If others don't agree, their opinion of me will diminish. It's completely fair game, and by the way, you do it constantly. I chose that term "big dic" for a reason.
So, you want those you fling poo at to fling it back.
That may be how you get your rocks off, but I have better things to do with my time.
“If there is no struggle, there is no progress.” -- Frederick Douglass
Your view here is diametrically opposed to your signature line, [COLOR="SlateGray"]just sayin' [/COLOR];)
Poo flinging isn't struggle. It's merely poo flinging. It does not advance any cause, change any opinions, or do the world an iota of good.
but, if you have any poo, fling it now!
<flings poo at Jim>
It's completely fair game, and by the way, you do it constantly. I chose that term "big dic" for a reason.
You also provided the reasons for your reasoning. Just like I defined the concept of 'big dic' with supporting facts.
I never challenge anyone without supporting facts - the always required reason why. You know that quite well when I overtly challenged your beliefs in Saddam's WMDs and justification for "Mission Accomplished".
I also stated up front when and why I was challenging classicman's constant cheap shots with cheap shot. And I remind everyone of that event that was necessary due to a destructive tone encourages by so much silence.
If I do 'it' constantly, then post examples of posts not provided with the supporting justificiations? If you are making an accusation, then you have examples.
It is an insult to post without supporting facts. 70% of Americans did just that - which is why so many blindly accepted a Saddam WMD lie. And therefore sent 4000 American servicemen irresponsibly to a useless death. Many even get angry when the 'reasons why' are provided. For some, anything more complex than the Daily News makes some angry. That also is insulting.
Let's not forget a perfect example: "Mission Accomplish" that made you so angry. I posted unpopular facts and numbers constantly. Overtly challenged what we now know were lies and myths. We know today facts back then could not support the 'Saddam WMD' myths. And I keep posting the reaons why back then in 2003. Very unpopular to oppose conclusions based only in emotion.
Demonstrated not only were reasons necessary to justify war - which everyone should remember today. And that the administration was overtly lying - which is no longer in dispute. But the point. Despite what you accuse me of, I provide fundamental supporting facts which is why my posts are so often unpopular - and longer.
I would hope you learned, for example, why facts necessary to justify war - as so bluntly posted in 2003. I would hope you never forget those so many reasons why. Even though that reality made you so angry back then, those underlying reasons why were accurate.
Remember how I cautioned (in maybe 2004) of the resulting economic damage what would occur? Well I was wrong. I only put the number at $400 billion. But again, I made statements that a majority disagreed with. And I said why - ie $400 billion -well above what anyone else was saying. Well I was wrong. The number is closer to $1trillion. I did not just post the unpopular. Included (routinely) were reasons why.
Welcome to an economy that happens when the predicted bills come due. Another example of something you did not like - but that I predicted WITH the underlying reasons why and without being politically correct. Something I due routinely - and therefore are not popular for demanding the irrefutable fact.
Posts not based in logic - based only in emotion - without supporting facts - that overtly challenge another - that is called what? For some, that is why they carry big guns. What kind of people are they called?
What kind of people are they called?
Americans. With just as much right to their opinion as you. Whether you like it, agree with it or not, doesn't matter.
Right, Tommy, you proved that somebody was a big dic. You proved it. Good on ya.
Right, Tommy, you proved that somebody was a big dic. You proved it. Good on ya.
I cant speak for TW..but here is my take on what he said.
From my experience, the name calling generally follows a pattern.
There are those who will frequently post outside opinions...then duck and cover when challenged.
Everyone here has a right to post an opinion, but when that member cannot or will not provide facts to support that opinion (eg. govt data is biased..even when its not govt data) or demonstrates an unwillingness to acknowledge facts on the other side that challenge that opinion, one can reasonably assume that the first member is not interested in discussion and all that remains is the name calling and declaring oneself an American and with a right to an opinion, regardless of the facts!
Facts? Bah...who cares about facts when having a political discussion! Its more convenient for some to insist that others "prove a negative" (demand proof that govt data is NOT biased, rather than offer proof that it is.)
But then, I am just a partisan mouthpiece and former sleazy lobbyist...or so I am told repeatedly, when all else fails. :D
OMG, they've killed Tommy.
[youtube]ThtQTIK3UFw[/youtube]
Everyone here has a right to post an opinion,
But then, I am just a partisan mouthpiece and former sleazy lobbyist...
See - we are not that far apart - on these two points we now agree.
I didn't agree with the latter until recently though, you've finally convinced me.
See - we are not that far apart - on these two points we now agree.
I didn't agree with the latter until recently though, you've finally convinced me.
I've learned that cheap parlour tricks are the best (only?) way to engage narrow minded people around here. ;)
Now I just need to figure out how to "prove a negative" in order to have further engagement.
Americans. With just as much right to their opinion as you. Whether you like it, agree with it or not, doesn't matter.
The difference is that you do it only for personal attacks. And then take offense when I attacked you cheap shot for cheap shot. Why are you here? You even went to the Technology forum only to attack me. You had nothing useful to post. You did not have any technical knowledge to contribute. Morethanpretty accurately identfied classicman's "Limbaugh" attitude in
Choosing network adapter.
The cheapshot at TW before he ever even posted in this thread was very unwarranted and bad taste. I don't appreciate it in the politics threads (any of the cheap shots taken by anyone), but shit like that needs to stay in those threads. I generally stay away from them because I don't like all the personal attacks. I hate that the politics threads are so immature and unpleasant because of it,
Tommy dragged this here - not me.
What kind of people are they called?
Americans. With just as much right to their opinion as you. Whether you like it, agree with it or not, doesn't matter.
I made a joke as explained in that forum. Why are you bringing it here tommy? Since you and she didn't "get it" I apologized. I guess quoting that would make your above point invalid. Typical Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity move. Selective quoting.
You haven't enough social grace to even accept an apology. I guess in your world, and apparently some other posters, its ok to attack someones family or wife whom you have never met nor interacted and call them a [COLOR="White"]"gonorrhea dripping whore" [/COLOR]just to "make a point" - Well it isn't ok with me. Additionally, it wasn't me nor my wife you attacked. It was another poster. Oh, and you still haven't apologized for that.
One suggestion, perhaps you should keep track of which people you attack next time. Have a nice day.
I made a joke as explained in that forum. Why are you bringing it here tommy?
Your political agenda is the topic here. You posted terrorist threats only with the intent of causing hurt. I am surprised you also did not accuse men if being a dirty Jew. Your apology was for a political reasons. You then went right back to your mockery, insults, personal attacks, and ... as Redux noted when you could not support your extremist accusations, you ran away.
You never apologized due to regret. You went right back to being nasty. You apologized because you had to admit your terrorist threats - because your intentional post to physically attack me complete with identify and address - are what Limbaugh encourages and that extremist advocate. Nobody posts with such harmful intent by accident.
Yes - everyone. He intentionally posted terrorist threats because he is doing what extremists have done all through history. It’s not about making America great. It’s all about a political agenda complete with mockery of liberals and disparaging remarks about moderates. Those terroristic threats were posted only due to an agenda based in hate.
This nastiness happens when peers remains silent about that nastiness openly encouraged and advocated by Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh. So destructive as to even obstruct all government - to make Obama fail. Classicman is simply doing what is advocated by extremists for a political agenda.
Have either of you ever used the ignore button? It might be a good idea to give it a go.
Perhaps the politics forum should just be renamed? It could be dangerous to have a board without an outlet for poisonous but otherwise useless gas -like a chemical factory without a flare.
Poo flinging isn't struggle. It's merely poo flinging. It does not advance any cause, change any opinions, or do the world an iota of good.
Now that's quotable quote...thanks Pie!
Have either of you ever used the ignore button? It might be a good idea to give it a go.
I think poorly of that function and do not need it. His constant personal attacks do not bother me personally. I expect extremists to do that when challenged because of their nature – including identifying me by name and address to make me a public target for extremists. Why did he work so long and hard to discover that information? Extremism is driven by hate (or maybe the other way around).
Extremists throughout history have done same to undermine whole societies. Hitler defined it important to seize power: disparage the bourgeoisies and intelligencia. Then the only people left can tell everyone how to think.
Do I think he will undermine America? Of course not and that is not what I said. People such as he should be overtly challenged because extremists in numbers are a primary reason for wars, massacres. the Spanish Inquisition, intolerance, pedophilia that even the Catholic Church has all but encouraged, terrorism, torture, and even something so stupid as "We do not talk to our enemies".
You might notice, he is now appearing, often immediately, in any discussion I participate in. If his apology was truly meaningful, then he would not be posting in threads that he has nothing useful to contribute. Especially in technical threads where he obviously could not contribute. Defined are actions encouraged by Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh.
However it has been a while since I have heard that Hilary is evil.
We are not talking about poo. Those were personal threats that took significant time (and maybe money) to execute. He did so in a pre-meditated manner.
... I expect extremists to do that when challenged because of their nature – including identifying me by name and address to make me a public target for extremists. ...
... People such as he should be overtly challenged ...
We are not talking about poo. Those were personal threats that took significant time (and maybe money) to execute. He did so in a pre-meditated manner.
TW, the reliability of information is determined by both the accuracy of the information and verification of the source. There's even a commonly used alpha-numeric scale to rate the two components. It ranges from an accurate source of well established identity (A-1) to an inaccurate anonymous source (F-6). It's entirely possible to get good information from an anonymous source; or, bogus information from a well known source. An anonymous source of accurate information isn't easily discarded; however, it is always suspect as it may be a prelude to eventual deception since no one knows who the source is and can't verify where that person's sympathies lie by other means.
You fall into that category. Given your prolific posting in certain forums, I find that
ANYONE's attempt to further identify you does not constitute untoward behavior. That's the risk you accepted when you admonished "People such as he should be
overtly challenged" [bold mine].
I concur that using the ignore feature is inappropriate in this instance. Please do continue to talk to your opponents here: "Keep your friends close: keep your enemies closer."
that's just emotional extremist talk. why are you so anti-american?
Given your prolific posting in certain forums, I find that ANYONE's attempt to further identify you does not constitute untoward behavior.
I disagree. Seeking out unoffered personal details of a forum poster is creepy, and using those details to draw attention to the fact that you know them is threatening and stalkerish.
As far as I am concerned, the less I know about tw, the better.
Ignorance is bliss.
I disagree. Seeking out unoffered personal details of a forum poster is creepy, and using those details to draw attention to the fact that you know them is threatening and stalkerish.
Yes it is. It should be frowned upon, if not be an outright banning offense. I don't care how cool it is to hate on tw, tolerance of that kind of crap is why I have shut off my give-a-shit-about-this-place valve.
It's just not as cute as you might think it is. And yes, I mean some of you with your cute little remarks, only made if it's in the popular realm.
I'm curious about tw and what his story is. But I agree with Happy Monkey that trying to expose someone who wishes to remain anonymous is really a pretty shitty thing to do. There are many people on the Cellar who wish to remain anonymous to the search engines and to other specific people in their real lives. They may PM each other with their real names, friend each other on facebook, or even get together in real life, but they try to be anonymous to the world when they post here. It's something that should be respected.
It's something that should be respected.
To virtually every extent of your post, I agree, but . . .
How would you feel if he called your wife a "gonorrhea dripping whore"?
I would laugh.
[SIZE=1]
Oh noes! Someone's saying baaad things on teh Interwebz![/SIZE]
People with an ounce of character do not try to fuck up someone's life because they made them mad. It's petty and childish...and in some cases very very dangerous. Call him all the names you want, call him a cunt with his panties in a wad, call him anything...but I know how you'd feel if we outed your identity.
I, however, as hateful as you may think me, would not consider doing such a low-handed thing. These are the kinds of behaviors that show what you really stand for (not much) and what kind of person you really are (leaving that one alone.)
thanks Shaw - I appreciate that.
How would you feel if he called your wife a "gonorrhea dripping whore"?
I wouldn't want such ugliness directed at me or my family, but at the same time, it's so preposterous as to be laughable. I wouldn't be hurt by such an over the top comment. I know my wife is not such a person, so some dude on the internet saying it really just shows what kind of person they are. It has no reflection on me. Or my wife. Also, anyone who says that is clearly trying to get a rise out of me, and I wouldn't fall for it.
Think about it. When you first changed your username, you were repeatedly making sure no one associated classicman with (former user name). When Shel called you by your first name, you asked that he edit his post so no one could connect you to, well, you.
But it's OK to scream tw's name, because he called a buddy's wife a GDW? Whoever the buddy was, he seems less concerned by this than you. You bring it up over and over...are you still hurting over it, or is it some way to cast aspersions, that you cannot otherwise find, at tw?
classic, I like you on a personal level.
Your interaction with tw, however, makes YOU look bad.
quit picking on the retarded kid, dumbass.
no shaw, its obviously me making a bigger deal out of a piece of shit like tw than I should. I had him on ignore for a long time and tried again. FAIL.
I let it all get to me again, with tw, spexxie, redux...
Made a nice ass of myself lowering myself - oh well. Live and try to learn again.
My attempts at making my point only made me play their game. Got it.
I'm out.
When you really think about it, "gonorrhea dripping whore" is wrong. It's not really "gonorrhea" that drips if somebody has gonorrhea. There may be a vaginal discharge, but it's stuff coming from a pelvic inflammation as a result of having the disease.
So the correct term would have to be "whore experiencing a vaginal discharge as the result of gonorrhea".
The overly wordy description would have fit TW's style a bit more as well.
I think we're supposed to call them "sex workers" now too.
how much work can it really be?
how much work can it really be?
Are you volunteering to do field research? report back. :D
I learned in the military that rule number 1 is to never ever ever volunteer for anything. rules are made to be broken though.
no shaw, its obviously me making a bigger deal out of a piece of shit like tw than I should. I had him on ignore for a long time and tried again. FAIL.
I let it all get to me again, with tw, spexxie, redux...
Made a nice ass of myself lowering myself - oh well. Live and try to learn again.
My attempts at making my point only made me play their game. Got it.
I'm out.
A classic response....always the victim and never the perp? WTF!
More cheap parlour tricks like basing an opinion on negative evidence
(eg. govt data is biased because it is, no evidence required)
This isn't the politics forum. get back in your cage.
It ain't the tits and ass thread either, get back in your cage.
:lol:
there's room for tits and ass in every thread.
ooor
there seems to be plenty of twats and asses in this thread so...
There is plenty of blame and responsibility for the tone of the political discourse here..despite any pleas of victimization and "lowering oneself" in response. I have made those same pleas.
And the "hit and run" shots of those who really have no interest in improving the tone and quality of the discourse (Lookout?) and who find it satisfying to contribute by furthering the cheap shots is unfortunate and adds little in the way of making the Cellar a better place.
no shaw, its obviously me making a bigger deal out of a piece of shit like tw than I should. I had him on ignore for a long time and tried again. FAIL.
I let it all get to me again, with tw, spexxie, redux...
Made a nice ass of myself lowering myself - oh well. Live and try to learn again.
My attempts at making my point only made me play their game. Got it.
I'm out.
Classic, every time you lower yourself, I lower myself right back. I propose a pact. You and I will not call each other names or insult each other. And if someone else calls either of us names, or insults us, the other one will post a condemnation of the name caller/insulter.
You in?
And the "hit and run" shots of those who really have no interest in improving the tone and quality of the discourse (Lookout?) and who find it satisfying to contribute by furthering the cheap shots is unfortunate and adds little in the way of making the Cellar a better place.
Its only a cheap shot if you don't agree with or don't like the poster. Otherwise its called making your point and letting it go.... The opposite of the unending circular hate fest that some people are unhappy with.
Its only a cheap shot if you don't agree with or don't like the poster. Otherwise its called making your point and letting it go.... The opposite of the unending circular hate fest that some people are unhappy with.
My point is...if one is unhappy with the hate fest...
This kind of post...."seems to be plenty of twats and asses in this thread so"...is simply more of the same.
But, hey..post what you want and I will do the same.
Classic, You in?
I appreciate the sentiment. I've already said what I had to say. My plan is to either post like an adult or not post at all.
I've already said what I had to say. My plan is to either post like an adult or not post at all.
I assume you mean from this point forward and not the blame game from your last post. :D
Is it time for the puppies yet?
I appreciate the sentiment. I've already said what I had to say. My plan is to either post like an adult or not post at all.
I'm holding out the olive branch, here. Can't you show me some love?
I'm holding out the olive branch, here. Can't you show me some love?
Are the olives eatable? I love olives.
Are the olives eatable? I love olives.
::looks up recipe for olive-stuffed puppy::
Is it time for the puppies yet?
It is close, but I regret every post I make over there.
We can have puppies here
or kids.
bring on the kids
Puppies taste like chicken. Esp if roasted on a skewer.
[youtube]m1_WAoWbcyw[/youtube]
I've really enjoyed the transient good will in the preceding couple of pages; but, you can't teach an old dog new tricks, a Zebra can't change its stripes, and
they can't help it, it's in their nature. All in all they're just another brick in the wall. [COLOR="White"]Please prove me wrong.[/COLOR]
The goats; however, seem to be quite versatile.
I'm holding out the olive branch, here. Can't you show me some love?
Yes I can and I think I did. One day at a time. . .
But remember the last time I called out someone it didn't work out so well for anyone and as I've been repeatedly reminded over the last couple days, this is "just an internet forum."
Here is a novel concept for the Politics Discussion Forum.
No links!
Or at the very least, no links to opinion columns and op/eds, that by their very nature are biased (opinionated).
Why not discuss issues between members as opposed to attempting to make a point by posting someone else's opinion.
Lets just simplify politics and you won't even need a forum for it. At any time that you have to vote, in any election it will all come down to two choices...
a giant douche or a turd sandwich ;)
how is that different from the current situation?
Here is a novel concept for the Politics Discussion Forum.
No links!
Or at the very least, no links to opinion columns and op/eds, that by their very nature are biased (opinionated).
Why not discuss issues between members as opposed to attempting to make a point by posting someone else's opinion.
It would be great to get rid of the op ed bullshit, but when even data from the CBO gets called partisan, I wonder how that would work. There are two members who are very fond of op ed arguments, and these two will change around the time science discovers the moon is made of green cheese. Everyone has been relatively polite in the "Kentucky" discussion. I am waiting for it to unravel any second. *sigh*
Here is a novel concept for the Politics Discussion Forum.
No links!
Isn't that called
Nothingland?
Here is a novel concept for the Politics Discussion Forum.
No links!
Isn't that called Nothingland?
Why yes it is and many find that preferable to the missing links in the Politics forum. :p:
Why yes it is and many find that preferable to the missing links in the Politics forum. :p:
Knowing that opinion columns on either side are partisan or ideologically based and, more often than not, distort or misrepresent the full picture of the issue in question in order to support an agenda, why would you prefer that over the discussion of the facts?
I think its a great idea to remove the links of others who may be more knowledgeable, have inside information, deal with this on a daily basis and/or are well educated in the topic being discussed. Lets just make a list of the acceptable links/quotable sources - that way we can limit any opinions or sources that disagree with them. I'll voluntarily refrain from participating in the selection. Just let me know whats allowed.
I think its a great idea to remove the links of others who may be more knowledgeable, have inside information, deal with this on a daily basis and/or are well educated in the topic being discussed. Lets just make a list of the acceptable links/quotable sources - that way we can limit any opinions or sources that disagree with them. I'll voluntarily refrain from participating in the selection. Just let me know whats allowed.
It is really a pretty simple concept.....only link to news stories, not opinions. Opinion columns have an agenda....news stories do not or should not.
If you are truly concerned about bias, why bring more outside bias into the discussion?
Here is an example:
What makes you think this conservative blogger is more knowledgeable on global warming or has more inside information, deals with the issue on a daily basis or is well educated on the topic?
A crash course in global warming - part 1
link
Whats wrong with sticking to the objective as opposed to the subjective in terms of links?
And offering your own opinion on the objective link rather than posting the opinion of others.
If a group of Cellarites were sitting in a bar discussing global warming or health care or the economy
("pass the peanuts....where's the waitress...hey, did you hear on the news today...."), there would be no links, no flooding the discussion with outside opinions....
Whats so bad about discussing issues w/o bringing in outside influences?
Here is a novel concept for the Politics Discussion Forum.
No links!
Or at the very least, no links to opinion columns and op/eds, that by their very nature are biased (opinionated).
Why not discuss issues between members as opposed to attempting to make a point by posting someone else's opinion.
Meh. They would still just call you a stupid asshole for having that opinion.:headshake
I think its a great idea to remove the links of others who may be more knowledgeable, have inside information, deal with this on a daily basis and/or are well educated in the topic being discussed. Lets just make a list of the acceptable links/quotable sources - that way we can limit any opinions or sources that disagree with them. I'll voluntarily refrain from participating in the selection. Just let me know whats allowed.
Apropos of nothing, I think Redux has the insider knowledge and deals with these issues on a daily basis.
This is what he's talking about: discuss the issues...beyond pasted links and articles. We could all learn something beyond media-driven opinions.
Not trying to stir trouble, I just think it's a valid point.
Scarily similar actually.
Thanks Spexxie.
Class, even though you won't do it anymore, you have to admit that it'll still happen.
I dont claim to be an expert, but I think its reasonable to suggest that many of us here have as much expertise on global warming as
this guy.....or as much knowledge or understanding of the stimulus programs as guys like Dick Morris and other "experts" who are linked and who are partisan spinmeisters, not policy guys.
Meh. They would still just call you a stupid asshole for having that opinion.:headshake
[INDENT]If a group of Cellarites were sitting in a bar discussing global warming or health care or the economy ("pass the peanuts....where's the waitress...hey, did you hear on the news today...."), there would be no links, no flooding the discussion with outside opinions....[/INDENT]
First one to scream asshole, pays for the beer.
Class, even though you won't do it anymore, you have to admit that it'll still happen.
If you are asking if I'll call an asshole an asshole, You're damn right I will.
Currently he and tommy-boy are on ignore.
If you are asking if I'll call an asshole an asshole, You're damn right I will.
Currently he and tommy-boy are on ignore.
Ah....its ok for you to call someone an asshole...but expressing an opinion that you are narrow-minded, when you criticize widely accept govt data as biased, is a personal attack.
No double standard there.
:lol2:
The double-standard is the essence of good education. Do as I say, not as I do. :p:
now, back to the topless women...
If you are asking if I'll call an asshole an asshole, You're damn right I will.
...
Calling someone an asshole for being an asshole is one thing. Calling someone an asshole because you disagree with them is wrong.
A wise man once said:
Gosh. In this deeply fractured society, it is now an option to believe that the other side is not just incorrect, not just wrong, not even just stupid, but actually broken.
Believe what you want. And then get ready for the twister.
We can't survive like this. We can't function like this. We can't live our lives believing that everybody else is a broken, sick fuck. It's not gonna work. We can't educate our children, we can't defend ourselves from enemies, we can't help the unfortunate.
Yesterday we had a study showing that almost all adult men avoid lost, crying children in malls. Why: they expect they will be charged with being a pedophile.
We simply can't go on like this. It won't end well.
The people who believe differently than you are perfectly normal people. Someday, you may need to ask them for help. What will be the result? Will they help you? Someday, they may ask you for help. Will you help them?
How are we going to come together? Especially if there comes a time when we really need to?
You got it wrong Spexxie. I didn't for months during what I would term as a good spirited debate. Then the PM threats (Assholish move to me) the narrowminded comments et all. I care not to rehash this. I'm moving on - care to join me or would you prefer to point fingers and relive it again for no reason?
ETA: I just realized that my last post implied I was calling him and asshole, again. That was another poorly written post by me. Whatever.
Nice and sunny out today :)
Why yes it is and many find that preferable to the missing links in the Politics forum. :p:
Knowing that opinion columns on either side are partisan or ideologically based and, more often than not, distort or misrepresent the full picture of the issue in question in order to support an agenda, why would you prefer that over the discussion of the facts?
I'm sorry Redux, my bad, in this context I was making a play on words in which the term
missing links refers to some of the participants and their behavior (flinging poo) along the lines of
definition #1 here and
definition #2 here. Hence the ":p:." The reference probably dates back to before your time. ;)