The Democrats don't even know who is nominated yet, so they can't credibly make a complaint about the qualifications or historical partisanship of the nominee. All of this is designed to create a frenzy within the left - the manipulations seem to have worked if this thread is any indication.
The President hasn't even announced the nomination, a single question been asked, but the Republicans already have the votes to confirm the nomination. Let that sink in. This on the heels of saying a nomination should never be allowed in an election year when the last bench position was open under similar but not as constrained circumstances.
Your hypocrisy is only constrained by your faux outrage.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Yes of course it is significant in my view. It is obvious that it is not significant in others' views. People can decide whether they feel it is significant or not, I don't think the facts are in question. In 2016 the Democrats wanted one thing. In 2020 they wanted another. It seems to me also that deciding whether their inconsistency is significant or not is also in alignment with an individual poster's partisan leanings. With hypocrisy seemingly existing only in the eye of the beholder, it is unsurprising that politics has grown so divisive.
As for your analogy: you're correct, I did not address it. I view analogy to be a weak form of argument, at least in most cases. If you have a point, you can usually just make it directly to greater effect. I only respond to points of discussion that interest me, which I realize is an indulgence. If I don't respond to a post or a point, I won't tell people that their point is disinteresting, I will simply move past it. I know from your posts on here that you don't fall into the regular emotional traps that are more the rule than the exception in threads like this, so I felt a quick explanation was warranted.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
If a troll can’t troll in a succinct couple lines or less, I’m not reading.
His game is really slipping.
As for the thread. Senators who have decided their vote before a selection is made. For a judge who has rendered her verdicts before a case is even made. Sounds like Justice the way it was always intended.
__________________ Would there even be no trade clauses if Edmonton was out of the NHL? - fotze
If a troll can’t troll in a succinct couple lines or less, I’m not reading.
His game is really slipping.
As for the thread. Senators who have decided their vote before a selection is made. For a judge who has rendered her verdicts before a case is even made. Sounds like Justice the way it was always intended.
Not much different when they said they wouldn't give a fair impeachment trial, and they were decided long before anyone had presented anything. Then some of them just skipped it. Dereliction of duty.
The President hasn't even announced the nomination, a single question been asked, but the Republicans already have the votes to confirm the nomination. Let that sink in. This on the heels of saying a nomination should never be allowed in an election year when the last bench position was open under similar but not as constrained circumstances.
Your hypocrisy is only constrained by your faux outrage.
I will let it sink in that the Senate needs to vote in a Presidential nominee? I'm pretty sure that system is already sunk in, as it's literally the way justices are confirmed. How many justices have been confirmed by the senate with a minority of votes?
And you're right, I'm totally outraged! oh wait, no I'm not. In fact, I would say I'm one of the least emotionally invested posters here. I'm interested in what is going on, but I would describe a lot of the message in this thread to be shot through with hysteria and outrage. While the term cognitive dissonance has become something of a cliche, I think it is quite an appropriate explanation for posters' response to my thoughts here. After all, I'm merely pointing out that politicians on all sides, as a rule, are lying, self-interested, power hungry hypocrites - hardly a particularly controversial position.
I wish people would simply be honest and say: "sure the Democrats are also scumbags....but they're MY scumbags."
Nation Surprised To Learn All Politicians Are Hypocrites
September 22nd, 2020
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Americans were shocked this week after their preferred political parties completely reversed their positions from what they were just a few years ago. Avid political loyalists are heartbroken at the realization that maybe all politicians are hypocrites who probably never mean a single word they say, ever.
"I thought my favorite politicians were honest, principled people," said local voter Harlita Finnbop. "My senator has never lied to me, ever! I never imagined he would betray my trust by believing literally the opposite thing he believed just a few weeks or years ago! If we can't trust our politicians, who can we trust?"
Voters across the country briefly considered voting for the other political party but realized candidates in the other party were hypocrites too. They also considered supporting other candidates who appeared to have more integrity but backed out when they realized those guys were total losers and sissies.
Suddenly, everyone came to the realization that everyone who ever lived was probably a hypocrite. After a few moments of sad disbelief, the country collectively sighed and decided they don't really care if their politicians are hypocrites as long as they win.
It has been suggested a few times now to put this unfathomably obtuse dipsh-t on ignore, and you guys seem hellbent on responding to him as if to play a serious game of chess against a pigeon. On one hand, good for you on being willing to let this paste-eating troll have a seat at the adults table, but on the other hand, you really are only punishing yourselves by trying.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
It has been suggested a few times now to put this unfathomably obtuse dipsh-t on ignore, and you guys seem hellbent on responding to him as if to play a serious game of chess against a pigeon. On one hand, good for you on being willing to let this paste-eating troll have a seat at the adults table, but on the other hand, you really are only punishing yourselves by trying.
At this point I'm more annoyed by the basic responses. Britney gifs? Family guy clips?
Come on CP, we can troll a troll better than this. BE BETTER. I need that gif content that hits different. Give me some Eric Andre or something.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
It has been suggested a few times now to put this unfathomably obtuse dipsh-t on ignore, and you guys seem hellbent on responding to him as if to play a serious game of chess against a pigeon. On one hand, good for you on being willing to let this paste-eating troll have a seat at the adults table, but on the other hand, you really are only punishing yourselves by trying.
Here's the thing. I hate using the ignore list. I think it is a dangerous tool that counters good rhetorical battle and exposure to new ideas. Even the people that drive me up the wall give me pause to stop and rethink things. That is something I would miss with putting them on ignore.
What I prefer is for the moderation staff to recognize the behavior and take appropriate action. The behavior is flat out trolling. The individual does nothing but derail threads with completely asinine positions and hot takes. His comments are not designed to spurn discussion, they are to incite riots. It is as clear as the standing up hair on his head, and mold growing on the rocks of the bridge he lives under.
Yes, we could ignore idiots like this, but the problem is there are impressionable minds out there who see crap like this and think there is some truth to it. This is how these fringe ideologies recruit. It needs to be stopped, and the only way to do that is by shining the light of the facts on the lies, or removing them from the board all together.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
New Era, I completely agree and I feel the same way. However, all of that only really applies when you're having an actual discussion where your points are engaged with as part of a good faith exchange of ideas.
This...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoLevi
I only respond to points of discussion that interest me, which I realize is an indulgence. If I don't respond to a post or a point, I won't tell people that their point is disinteresting, I will simply move past it.
... should tell you that isn't what's happening with this particular individual, and unless you're the server from Montana's explaining why you don't have any crayons for him to draw on the table with, just move on.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
Last edited by TorqueDog; 09-22-2020 at 04:26 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
Essentially there are two ways to deal with a troll.
There is pointing out fallacies and hypocrisy in a way they cannot or doesn't know how to respond.
And then there is a well reasoned response that systematically takes apart their 'arguments' and demonstrate that they are indeed trolling.
Both have merits.
Keep in mind that the benefit of trolls is that when the second option is taken, no, you're not winning over the troll or changing their mind. That's not the goal. What you're doing is demonstrating how idiotic the troll is and anyone that might agree with the trolls position, in whe or in part, shifts away.
It's the Thank You For Smoking ice cream debate. "I'm not trying to convince you, I'm trying to convince them (everyone else)."
Now how long will this go on? I'm not sure. Eventually the troll tires, hence why we don't have a current thread about a buttermilk, salt, garlic, onion, mustard, chive, parsley, dill, pepper, paprika, and ground mustard seed mixed into a mayonnaise based sauce, as well as the compensation for those that bring you said sauce. (I'm trying my best to not bring attention to the poster who is essentially a slinky followed by the first Arabic numeral).
All that said, perhaps a thread about trolls would be a good idea.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
The success he has is in continuing the conversation by getting people to engage. Also in having posters now continue not merely engaging with him, but engaging with each other in meta-analysis of engagement with him that is also off the thread's topic.
Seriously, full credit to him for the quality of troll job going on. If we were going to have a thread discussing trolls, Bo Levi's work would make for a great case study.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
If you've just accepted that both sides are equally bad, and it doesn't matter who you vote for, then you have essentially given up on democracy.
Not at all. I doubt there is a person in a democracy who votes that doesn't have to eat some policy that they don't like in the party they are voting for.
Almost by definition voting means choosing the lesser of two evils.
It has been suggested a few times now to put this unfathomably obtuse dipsh-t on ignore, and you guys seem hellbent on responding to him as if to play a serious game of chess against a pigeon. On one hand, good for you on being willing to let this paste-eating troll have a seat at the adults table, but on the other hand, you really are only punishing yourselves by trying.
I hate to quote my own post, but there is a clear moderating line that isn't crossed here that is happily crossed on many other forums, which is both good and bad, imo.
I get it, they have their forum guidelines, they are heavy on individual bullying (that's been important for me and I appreciate it) and posters who tend to be too harsh to another individual poster. But I think they are missing a MASSIVE part of moderating a message board that most other medium to large size boards have figured out.
It's intuition and common sense towards posters who are clearly trolling a board, but know how to skirt said message board's rules. Posters like that know how to run roughshod over the board and I really wish the mods would see it that way as well, but unfortunately they seem fairly rigid in their "They either break our rules or they don't and they usually don't". That moderation style leads to pretty much any political thread being destroyed and owned by one poster at any given time.
I'm really of the opinion that you need to take the approach of any number of message boards and just speak as a team behind the scenes and say "Yes, we agree that this poster is doing what he is doing and we don't want him, so he's gone". Unfortunately, I don't see that approach being taken here, so we have to deal with a guy like this for months on end and no, everyone putting him on ignore is an insane suggestion that simply will not work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin
It never ceases to amaze me how one poster at a time with perfect trolling technique can bring this site to it's knees with no major threads able to move past that one poster's control.
I hesitate to criticize, but perhaps this community focuses laser hard on poster on poster insults and harsh speakers, but tends to leave perfect, thread destroying posters for months because they're technically not breaking a rule, which have a vastly more destructive wake on discussion.
Perhaps we need to be a little more versatile and human in our moderation of clear destructive posters? It's a private site, you don't have to give in to trolls just because they do a good job.
Last edited by jayswin; 09-22-2020 at 07:58 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
If you've just accepted that both sides are equally bad, and it doesn't matter who you vote for, then you have essentially given up on democracy.
If you've accepted both sides are equally bad in the US then you just aren't paying attention. One side has completely given up on even pretending anymore.
In Canada you might have a legitment case. Still a bad reason not to find the best fit.
If you guys are going to keep feeding the troll can the mods at least change his name? Everytime i see his posts I think of of our allstar QB and it's killing his image on here.
How about TomBrayBray? He sounds like a Tom Braybray.
__________________ Peter12 "I'm no Trump fan but he is smarter than most if not everyone in this thread. ”
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Johnny Makarov For This Useful Post:
