|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
What often happens is that people need an opposing viewpoint to latch onto and criticize relentlessly. In a community where there is mostly consensus on big-scale issues and disagreement on details, the few individuals who take the opposite perspective have to be painted as the enemy.
Perhaps nowhere is this more pointedly seen than in the UK thread, currently dealing with a severe case of bardtown withdrawal. Without him to argue the opposite view, it descends mostly into criticizing arguments he made earlier, in absentia. Similar, though less pronounced, developments happen here for pretty much any deviation from the center-left norm in anything but specific details. In either direction.
If there were no Nazis it would be necessary to invent them.
|
On September 23 2017 14:04 LegalLord wrote:
Reflecting the actual political climate, this thread tends to have an endless supply of uncharitable and aggressive assertion that anyone who doesn't agree is the one who is truly evil.
I like to think we can do better than that, but I agree. I would rather come to an understanding with someone I disagree with, and be able to say I'd hang out with them afterwards, than to keep spitting venom for no reason. It's not something you look back on fondly.
|
I think this is all missing the point a little.
I think that many posts GreenHorizons (and other posters of similar ideological bent) make are not conducive to reasonable conversation. However, I don't think that the intention of those posts is to "piss off everybody to the right".
I would find it far harder to make that statement (with appropriate reversals of direction) about some number of the posters in this thread who have more conservative sympathies. I won't name any names.
|
Gh has said before that he doesn't care about political relevance or changing anything in america. When you view his posts from this basis they make a lot more sense. The biggest problem is people making posts agreeing with someone else and making a comment about another poster in their post that they didn't reply to. That and exorbitant quote lengths on articles people find relevant to post to the thread but that is the one no one cares about to respond to.
Conservative posters I feel have been failing to select the better replies and falling for obvious traps and trolls recently. Making thinly veiled insinuations that you support neo nazies or racism doesn't deserve a reply in the first place.
|
On September 23 2017 14:04 LegalLord wrote:
If trolls constantly ask me inane questions I also refuse to answer them. The result is almost always that such people assume the least charitable interpretation they can come up with and live by it. But it hardly is telling or meaningful in any way. From what I've seen that's not far from Danglars and the current wave of assuming he was supporting the neo-Nazis.
Reflecting the actual political climate, this thread tends to have an endless supply of uncharitable and aggressive assertion that anyone who doesn't agree is the one who is truly evil.
When you're done with the uncharitable insinuations disguised as questions, I can see how a newcomer sees it and thinks there's some nefarious dodge at play.
On September 23 2017 14:06 NewSunshine wrote:
There's reason people continue to ask you the question, it's because the gestalt of your posting at times defies the idea that you actually condemn white supremacist ideology. I'm not going to call you a white supremacist, that's a very heavy term, and I don't appreciate that you insinuated I ever did that. But it stinks a little bit when actual neo-nazis commit violence and kill someone, and they're the reason we're having the conversation, and you think that's the moment to bring up how awful the Antifa are. As though they had anything to do with what happened. People would rather you make things clear when this happens.
People also continue to ask you these questions because of another thing you mentioned. Sometimes the thread moves very quickly, and they miss the one post you took to address it. This would be fine, mea culpa, et cetera, but you're usually at the center of these fast-moving discussions, and you waste no time going back to your usual slippery ways. You're the one who makes it get lost.
Genuinely asking someone a question on their position, getting an answer, and moving on, is one thing. Asking a question about someone's thoughts on Antifa, in the middle of a discussion about neo-nazis, takes on an entirely different context. If I get you to do anything from our discussion here, I want you to understand that. A single instance of "I shouldn't have to say I'm not a white supremacist, or that I condemn Nazis" is acceptable, you shouldn't have to do that in a vacuum. But when you say things that make people wonder, and repeatedly refuse to just say it so people can move on, that's what people have a problem with.
It's clear we'll absolutely disagree here. In no way would a normal person conclude that my posting behavior means I look favorably on white supremacist ideology. You've got a little bit of soul searching to do on that one. I never "thought that's the moment to bring up how awful Antifa was," you're misremembering. I am under no obligation to weigh in promptly when I agree with what's being said, or I'm assumed to be supremacist scum. You're way out of line here and I hope you realize that in time. When I do post, as I did post, doing that and you miss it, I'm not going to help correct your mistake every time. It's on you if you skim over my posts and miss them in the moving thread, then come to the conclusion "Hey, I don't remember Dang strongly condemning this shit. He probably agrees with it!"--without first doing a search to check and see. Handy feature, that search function by poster. In fourteen clicks you can save yourself from insulting another poster and looking like a race-baiting hyperpartisan.
You're still out in the weeds at forgetting or selectively misinterpreting context in service of making your bad first impression seem right. I condemned Trump's first statement because of how it might embolden white supremacists. Never mattered, people assumed I was with that lot. When the discussion moved over to some horrible whitewashing (Journalists did compare Antifa with Americans on DDay. Posters did say one side was more numerous than other in violence. People were tarring conservatives with this) of Antifa, naturally myself and others spoke up against the ridiculousness. One couldn't understand a perspective, another also couldn't understand the perspective and did a very false charge. The thread followed. Then you barge on in (I'm assuming this is your attempt at context) and think it's our fault the debate shifted. Read the lefty shitposters and their intentional misreading of points, and start to get a grip on the thread history that's only a month old. You're not the first person to misremember, misread context, and come to faulty generalizations, but you might be the first person to recognize that a true telling of the history shows you're way off.
|
On September 23 2017 14:40 Sermokala wrote:...
Gh has said before that he doesn't care about political relevance or changing anything in america. When you view his posts from this basis they make a lot more sense.
...
What are you implying that he does care about?
EDIT: As I understand it, when GH said things along those lines it was in the context of "I don't think 'political viability' is an excuse for not doing what is right", which is a point we could debate but is a long way away from "I want to piss off everybody more conservative than me".
|
On September 23 2017 14:44 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 14:40 Sermokala wrote:...
Gh has said before that he doesn't care about political relevance or changing anything in america. When you view his posts from this basis they make a lot more sense.
... What are you implying that he does care about? EDIT: As I understand it, when GH said things along those lines it was in the context of "I don't think 'political viability' is an excuse for not doing what is right", which is a point we could debate but is a long way away from "I want to piss off everybody more conservative than me".
Yes that's what I drew from what I said. Without that basis he does come off as a "me against everyone" kind of poster but in reality he just doesn't acept that political viability doesn't excuse moral issues with things. With that basis he's more of a "yeah but it's still shit and we can't just acept these things." Poster. It's a posision he can take if he wants to.
|
AP restores some of my faith.
A group of prominent scientists on Monday created a potential whiplash moment for climate policy, suggesting that humanity could have considerably more time than previously thought to avoid a “dangerous” level of global warming.
The upward revision to the planet’s influential “carbon budget” was published by a number of researchers who have been deeply involved in studying the concept, making it all the more unexpected. But other outside researchers raised questions about the work, leaving it unclear whether the new analysis — which, if correct, would have very large implications — will stick.
In a study published in the journal Nature Geoscience, a team of 10 researchers, led by Richard Millar of the University of Oxford, recalculated the carbon budget for limiting the Earth’s warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above temperatures seen in the late 19th century. It had been widely assumed that this stringent target would prove unachievable — but the new study would appear to give us much more time to get our act together if we want to stay below it. [...]
“The most complex Earth system models that provided input to [the IPCC] tend to slightly overestimate historical warming, and at the same time underestimate compatible historical CO2 emissions,” he said by email. “These two small discrepancies accumulate over time and lead to an slight underestimation of the remaining carbon budget. What we did in this study is to reset the uncertainties, starting from where we are today.”
Pierre Friedlingstein, another author of the study and a professor at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, added at the news briefing that “the models end up with a warming which is larger than the observed warming for the current emissions. … So, therefore, they derive a budget which is much lower.”
The new research, thus, seems to potentially empower a critique of climate science that has often been leveled by skeptics, doubters and “lukewarmers” who argue that warming is shaping up to be less than climate models have predicted.
WaPo also does well to comment on new research and climate models even if it might be in error and contrast with prior models.
|
On September 23 2017 14:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 14:04 LegalLord wrote:
If trolls constantly ask me inane questions I also refuse to answer them. The result is almost always that such people assume the least charitable interpretation they can come up with and live by it. But it hardly is telling or meaningful in any way. From what I've seen that's not far from Danglars and the current wave of assuming he was supporting the neo-Nazis.
Reflecting the actual political climate, this thread tends to have an endless supply of uncharitable and aggressive assertion that anyone who doesn't agree is the one who is truly evil. When you're done with the uncharitable insinuations disguised as questions, I can see how a newcomer sees it and thinks there's some nefarious dodge at play. Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 14:06 NewSunshine wrote:
There's reason people continue to ask you the question, it's because the gestalt of your posting at times defies the idea that you actually condemn white supremacist ideology. I'm not going to call you a white supremacist, that's a very heavy term, and I don't appreciate that you insinuated I ever did that. But it stinks a little bit when actual neo-nazis commit violence and kill someone, and they're the reason we're having the conversation, and you think that's the moment to bring up how awful the Antifa are. As though they had anything to do with what happened. People would rather you make things clear when this happens.
People also continue to ask you these questions because of another thing you mentioned. Sometimes the thread moves very quickly, and they miss the one post you took to address it. This would be fine, mea culpa, et cetera, but you're usually at the center of these fast-moving discussions, and you waste no time going back to your usual slippery ways. You're the one who makes it get lost.
Genuinely asking someone a question on their position, getting an answer, and moving on, is one thing. Asking a question about someone's thoughts on Antifa, in the middle of a discussion about neo-nazis, takes on an entirely different context. If I get you to do anything from our discussion here, I want you to understand that. A single instance of "I shouldn't have to say I'm not a white supremacist, or that I condemn Nazis" is acceptable, you shouldn't have to do that in a vacuum. But when you say things that make people wonder, and repeatedly refuse to just say it so people can move on, that's what people have a problem with. It's clear we'll absolutely disagree here. In no way would a normal person conclude that my posting behavior means I look favorably on white supremacist ideology. You've got a little bit of soul searching to do on that one. I never "thought that's the moment to bring up how awful Antifa was," you're misremembering. I am under no obligation to weigh in promptly when I agree with what's being said, or I'm assumed to be supremacist scum. You're way out of line here and I hope you realize that in time. When I do post, as I did post, doing that and you miss it, I'm not going to help correct your mistake every time. It's on you if you skim over my posts and miss them in the moving thread, then come to the conclusion "Hey, I don't remember Dang strongly condemning this shit. He probably agrees with it!"--without first doing a search to check and see. Handy feature, that search function by poster. In fourteen clicks you can save yourself from insulting another poster and looking like a race-baiting hyperpartisan.
I'm not saying you're a white supremacist. I'm not saying you look favorably on them, and I never said you agree with them. You're making assumptions and projections on me that simply aren't true. There's a difference between saying something you said/did looks bad because of X reason, and saying that you are a practitioner of bad thing X. You make no distinction between them in your conversations in this thread, and constantly bemoan how everyone accuses you of being a nazi sympathizer. Anyone who has done so, I would not agree with them. I don't know you well enough.
If you want me to think you're up for a genuine discussion on positions, stop being so quick to make the leap and attack everyone because you think they're trolling you.
|
Dangerous levels of climate change is perspective. Dangerous as in we can't live here anymore dangerous is different than its a lot worse then it really ought to be and we still have a mile to go to get to anywhere close to stopping extinction.
|
I'd prefer to live in a world where it turns out that the current climate models are on the pessimistic side - but even if they are we're almost certainly a long way from the point where we've done enough about it to rest on our laurels.
|
On September 23 2017 14:58 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 14:43 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2017 14:04 LegalLord wrote:
If trolls constantly ask me inane questions I also refuse to answer them. The result is almost always that such people assume the least charitable interpretation they can come up with and live by it. But it hardly is telling or meaningful in any way. From what I've seen that's not far from Danglars and the current wave of assuming he was supporting the neo-Nazis.
Reflecting the actual political climate, this thread tends to have an endless supply of uncharitable and aggressive assertion that anyone who doesn't agree is the one who is truly evil. When you're done with the uncharitable insinuations disguised as questions, I can see how a newcomer sees it and thinks there's some nefarious dodge at play. On September 23 2017 14:06 NewSunshine wrote:
There's reason people continue to ask you the question, it's because the gestalt of your posting at times defies the idea that you actually condemn white supremacist ideology. I'm not going to call you a white supremacist, that's a very heavy term, and I don't appreciate that you insinuated I ever did that. But it stinks a little bit when actual neo-nazis commit violence and kill someone, and they're the reason we're having the conversation, and you think that's the moment to bring up how awful the Antifa are. As though they had anything to do with what happened. People would rather you make things clear when this happens.
People also continue to ask you these questions because of another thing you mentioned. Sometimes the thread moves very quickly, and they miss the one post you took to address it. This would be fine, mea culpa, et cetera, but you're usually at the center of these fast-moving discussions, and you waste no time going back to your usual slippery ways. You're the one who makes it get lost.
Genuinely asking someone a question on their position, getting an answer, and moving on, is one thing. Asking a question about someone's thoughts on Antifa, in the middle of a discussion about neo-nazis, takes on an entirely different context. If I get you to do anything from our discussion here, I want you to understand that. A single instance of "I shouldn't have to say I'm not a white supremacist, or that I condemn Nazis" is acceptable, you shouldn't have to do that in a vacuum. But when you say things that make people wonder, and repeatedly refuse to just say it so people can move on, that's what people have a problem with. It's clear we'll absolutely disagree here. In no way would a normal person conclude that my posting behavior means I look favorably on white supremacist ideology. You've got a little bit of soul searching to do on that one. I never "thought that's the moment to bring up how awful Antifa was," you're misremembering. I am under no obligation to weigh in promptly when I agree with what's being said, or I'm assumed to be supremacist scum. You're way out of line here and I hope you realize that in time. When I do post, as I did post, doing that and you miss it, I'm not going to help correct your mistake every time. It's on you if you skim over my posts and miss them in the moving thread, then come to the conclusion "Hey, I don't remember Dang strongly condemning this shit. He probably agrees with it!"--without first doing a search to check and see. Handy feature, that search function by poster. In fourteen clicks you can save yourself from insulting another poster and looking like a race-baiting hyperpartisan. I'm not saying you're a white supremacist. I'm not saying you look favorably on them, and I never said you agree with them. You're making assumptions and projections on me that simply aren't true. There's a difference between saying something you said/did looks bad because of X reason, and saying that you are a practitioner of bad thing X. You make no distinction between them in your conversations in this thread, and constantly bemoan how everyone accuses you of being a nazi sympathizer. If you want me to think you're up for a genuine discussion on positions, stop being so quick to make the leap and attack everyone because you think they're trolling you.
This is just you being obtuse. Accusing someone of being a Nazi sympathizer isn't as bad as literaly calling them a nazi? They're both extremely charged acusations that won't get anyone anywhere good and you have to know that much at least.
|
On September 23 2017 15:01 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 14:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 14:43 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2017 14:04 LegalLord wrote:
If trolls constantly ask me inane questions I also refuse to answer them. The result is almost always that such people assume the least charitable interpretation they can come up with and live by it. But it hardly is telling or meaningful in any way. From what I've seen that's not far from Danglars and the current wave of assuming he was supporting the neo-Nazis.
Reflecting the actual political climate, this thread tends to have an endless supply of uncharitable and aggressive assertion that anyone who doesn't agree is the one who is truly evil. When you're done with the uncharitable insinuations disguised as questions, I can see how a newcomer sees it and thinks there's some nefarious dodge at play. On September 23 2017 14:06 NewSunshine wrote:
There's reason people continue to ask you the question, it's because the gestalt of your posting at times defies the idea that you actually condemn white supremacist ideology. I'm not going to call you a white supremacist, that's a very heavy term, and I don't appreciate that you insinuated I ever did that. But it stinks a little bit when actual neo-nazis commit violence and kill someone, and they're the reason we're having the conversation, and you think that's the moment to bring up how awful the Antifa are. As though they had anything to do with what happened. People would rather you make things clear when this happens.
People also continue to ask you these questions because of another thing you mentioned. Sometimes the thread moves very quickly, and they miss the one post you took to address it. This would be fine, mea culpa, et cetera, but you're usually at the center of these fast-moving discussions, and you waste no time going back to your usual slippery ways. You're the one who makes it get lost.
Genuinely asking someone a question on their position, getting an answer, and moving on, is one thing. Asking a question about someone's thoughts on Antifa, in the middle of a discussion about neo-nazis, takes on an entirely different context. If I get you to do anything from our discussion here, I want you to understand that. A single instance of "I shouldn't have to say I'm not a white supremacist, or that I condemn Nazis" is acceptable, you shouldn't have to do that in a vacuum. But when you say things that make people wonder, and repeatedly refuse to just say it so people can move on, that's what people have a problem with. It's clear we'll absolutely disagree here. In no way would a normal person conclude that my posting behavior means I look favorably on white supremacist ideology. You've got a little bit of soul searching to do on that one. I never "thought that's the moment to bring up how awful Antifa was," you're misremembering. I am under no obligation to weigh in promptly when I agree with what's being said, or I'm assumed to be supremacist scum. You're way out of line here and I hope you realize that in time. When I do post, as I did post, doing that and you miss it, I'm not going to help correct your mistake every time. It's on you if you skim over my posts and miss them in the moving thread, then come to the conclusion "Hey, I don't remember Dang strongly condemning this shit. He probably agrees with it!"--without first doing a search to check and see. Handy feature, that search function by poster. In fourteen clicks you can save yourself from insulting another poster and looking like a race-baiting hyperpartisan. I'm not saying you're a white supremacist. I'm not saying you look favorably on them, and I never said you agree with them. You're making assumptions and projections on me that simply aren't true. There's a difference between saying something you said/did looks bad because of X reason, and saying that you are a practitioner of bad thing X. You make no distinction between them in your conversations in this thread, and constantly bemoan how everyone accuses you of being a nazi sympathizer. If you want me to think you're up for a genuine discussion on positions, stop being so quick to make the leap and attack everyone because you think they're trolling you. This is just you being obtuse. Accusing someone of being a Nazi sympathizer isn't as bad as literaly calling them a nazi? They're both extremely charged acusations that won't get anyone anywhere good and you have to know that much at least.
Please don't misunderstand. That's not what I'm saying, and I'm not accusing Danglars of being either of these things.
|
Global warming is real, man-made, and dangerous, and we should be doing what we can to curb it. But that doesn't mean we should be pouring government money into every dumbass with a battery or a solar panel who promises to change the world and has no feasible business plan. Because the latter happens a lot.
A bus will do the work of 20 electric cars, a viable train system far more than that. Let's start there instead of wasting money on shams.
|
On September 23 2017 15:05 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 15:01 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 14:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 14:43 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2017 14:04 LegalLord wrote:
If trolls constantly ask me inane questions I also refuse to answer them. The result is almost always that such people assume the least charitable interpretation they can come up with and live by it. But it hardly is telling or meaningful in any way. From what I've seen that's not far from Danglars and the current wave of assuming he was supporting the neo-Nazis.
Reflecting the actual political climate, this thread tends to have an endless supply of uncharitable and aggressive assertion that anyone who doesn't agree is the one who is truly evil. When you're done with the uncharitable insinuations disguised as questions, I can see how a newcomer sees it and thinks there's some nefarious dodge at play. On September 23 2017 14:06 NewSunshine wrote:
There's reason people continue to ask you the question, it's because the gestalt of your posting at times defies the idea that you actually condemn white supremacist ideology. I'm not going to call you a white supremacist, that's a very heavy term, and I don't appreciate that you insinuated I ever did that. But it stinks a little bit when actual neo-nazis commit violence and kill someone, and they're the reason we're having the conversation, and you think that's the moment to bring up how awful the Antifa are. As though they had anything to do with what happened. People would rather you make things clear when this happens.
People also continue to ask you these questions because of another thing you mentioned. Sometimes the thread moves very quickly, and they miss the one post you took to address it. This would be fine, mea culpa, et cetera, but you're usually at the center of these fast-moving discussions, and you waste no time going back to your usual slippery ways. You're the one who makes it get lost.
Genuinely asking someone a question on their position, getting an answer, and moving on, is one thing. Asking a question about someone's thoughts on Antifa, in the middle of a discussion about neo-nazis, takes on an entirely different context. If I get you to do anything from our discussion here, I want you to understand that. A single instance of "I shouldn't have to say I'm not a white supremacist, or that I condemn Nazis" is acceptable, you shouldn't have to do that in a vacuum. But when you say things that make people wonder, and repeatedly refuse to just say it so people can move on, that's what people have a problem with. It's clear we'll absolutely disagree here. In no way would a normal person conclude that my posting behavior means I look favorably on white supremacist ideology. You've got a little bit of soul searching to do on that one. I never "thought that's the moment to bring up how awful Antifa was," you're misremembering. I am under no obligation to weigh in promptly when I agree with what's being said, or I'm assumed to be supremacist scum. You're way out of line here and I hope you realize that in time. When I do post, as I did post, doing that and you miss it, I'm not going to help correct your mistake every time. It's on you if you skim over my posts and miss them in the moving thread, then come to the conclusion "Hey, I don't remember Dang strongly condemning this shit. He probably agrees with it!"--without first doing a search to check and see. Handy feature, that search function by poster. In fourteen clicks you can save yourself from insulting another poster and looking like a race-baiting hyperpartisan. I'm not saying you're a white supremacist. I'm not saying you look favorably on them, and I never said you agree with them. You're making assumptions and projections on me that simply aren't true. There's a difference between saying something you said/did looks bad because of X reason, and saying that you are a practitioner of bad thing X. You make no distinction between them in your conversations in this thread, and constantly bemoan how everyone accuses you of being a nazi sympathizer. If you want me to think you're up for a genuine discussion on positions, stop being so quick to make the leap and attack everyone because you think they're trolling you. This is just you being obtuse. Accusing someone of being a Nazi sympathizer isn't as bad as literaly calling them a nazi? They're both extremely charged acusations that won't get anyone anywhere good and you have to know that much at least. Please don't misunderstand. That's not what I'm saying, and I'm not accusing Danglars of being either of these things.
If you don't want people to misunderstand that you are accusing them of being a white supremacist sympathizer then don't tell them that you think they look favorably on them.
Edit it's the same as if I said you look favorably apon Antifa but not their methods. I'm still insinuating that you support violent civilian suppression, just not the way that they are doing it.
|
On September 23 2017 15:08 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 15:05 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 15:01 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 14:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 14:43 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2017 14:04 LegalLord wrote:
If trolls constantly ask me inane questions I also refuse to answer them. The result is almost always that such people assume the least charitable interpretation they can come up with and live by it. But it hardly is telling or meaningful in any way. From what I've seen that's not far from Danglars and the current wave of assuming he was supporting the neo-Nazis.
Reflecting the actual political climate, this thread tends to have an endless supply of uncharitable and aggressive assertion that anyone who doesn't agree is the one who is truly evil. When you're done with the uncharitable insinuations disguised as questions, I can see how a newcomer sees it and thinks there's some nefarious dodge at play. On September 23 2017 14:06 NewSunshine wrote:
There's reason people continue to ask you the question, it's because the gestalt of your posting at times defies the idea that you actually condemn white supremacist ideology. I'm not going to call you a white supremacist, that's a very heavy term, and I don't appreciate that you insinuated I ever did that. But it stinks a little bit when actual neo-nazis commit violence and kill someone, and they're the reason we're having the conversation, and you think that's the moment to bring up how awful the Antifa are. As though they had anything to do with what happened. People would rather you make things clear when this happens.
People also continue to ask you these questions because of another thing you mentioned. Sometimes the thread moves very quickly, and they miss the one post you took to address it. This would be fine, mea culpa, et cetera, but you're usually at the center of these fast-moving discussions, and you waste no time going back to your usual slippery ways. You're the one who makes it get lost.
Genuinely asking someone a question on their position, getting an answer, and moving on, is one thing. Asking a question about someone's thoughts on Antifa, in the middle of a discussion about neo-nazis, takes on an entirely different context. If I get you to do anything from our discussion here, I want you to understand that. A single instance of "I shouldn't have to say I'm not a white supremacist, or that I condemn Nazis" is acceptable, you shouldn't have to do that in a vacuum. But when you say things that make people wonder, and repeatedly refuse to just say it so people can move on, that's what people have a problem with. It's clear we'll absolutely disagree here. In no way would a normal person conclude that my posting behavior means I look favorably on white supremacist ideology. You've got a little bit of soul searching to do on that one. I never "thought that's the moment to bring up how awful Antifa was," you're misremembering. I am under no obligation to weigh in promptly when I agree with what's being said, or I'm assumed to be supremacist scum. You're way out of line here and I hope you realize that in time. When I do post, as I did post, doing that and you miss it, I'm not going to help correct your mistake every time. It's on you if you skim over my posts and miss them in the moving thread, then come to the conclusion "Hey, I don't remember Dang strongly condemning this shit. He probably agrees with it!"--without first doing a search to check and see. Handy feature, that search function by poster. In fourteen clicks you can save yourself from insulting another poster and looking like a race-baiting hyperpartisan. I'm not saying you're a white supremacist. I'm not saying you look favorably on them, and I never said you agree with them. You're making assumptions and projections on me that simply aren't true. There's a difference between saying something you said/did looks bad because of X reason, and saying that you are a practitioner of bad thing X. You make no distinction between them in your conversations in this thread, and constantly bemoan how everyone accuses you of being a nazi sympathizer. If you want me to think you're up for a genuine discussion on positions, stop being so quick to make the leap and attack everyone because you think they're trolling you. This is just you being obtuse. Accusing someone of being a Nazi sympathizer isn't as bad as literaly calling them a nazi? They're both extremely charged acusations that won't get anyone anywhere good and you have to know that much at least. Please don't misunderstand. That's not what I'm saying, and I'm not accusing Danglars of being either of these things. If you don't want people to misunderstand that you are accusing them of being a white supremacist sympathizer then don't tell them that you think they look favorably on them.
This comes down to the person being clear when responding in the first place. If you don't give a direct answer, then assumptions are made. You can't fault Sunshine when someone else is being vague and it obscures their true intention. I'd rather assume and move on than wait patiently and never get a reply. I'll correct my opinion when I've been answered. People are flexible like that.
|
On September 23 2017 15:08 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 15:05 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 15:01 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 14:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 14:43 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2017 14:04 LegalLord wrote:
If trolls constantly ask me inane questions I also refuse to answer them. The result is almost always that such people assume the least charitable interpretation they can come up with and live by it. But it hardly is telling or meaningful in any way. From what I've seen that's not far from Danglars and the current wave of assuming he was supporting the neo-Nazis.
Reflecting the actual political climate, this thread tends to have an endless supply of uncharitable and aggressive assertion that anyone who doesn't agree is the one who is truly evil. When you're done with the uncharitable insinuations disguised as questions, I can see how a newcomer sees it and thinks there's some nefarious dodge at play. On September 23 2017 14:06 NewSunshine wrote:
There's reason people continue to ask you the question, it's because the gestalt of your posting at times defies the idea that you actually condemn white supremacist ideology. I'm not going to call you a white supremacist, that's a very heavy term, and I don't appreciate that you insinuated I ever did that. But it stinks a little bit when actual neo-nazis commit violence and kill someone, and they're the reason we're having the conversation, and you think that's the moment to bring up how awful the Antifa are. As though they had anything to do with what happened. People would rather you make things clear when this happens.
People also continue to ask you these questions because of another thing you mentioned. Sometimes the thread moves very quickly, and they miss the one post you took to address it. This would be fine, mea culpa, et cetera, but you're usually at the center of these fast-moving discussions, and you waste no time going back to your usual slippery ways. You're the one who makes it get lost.
Genuinely asking someone a question on their position, getting an answer, and moving on, is one thing. Asking a question about someone's thoughts on Antifa, in the middle of a discussion about neo-nazis, takes on an entirely different context. If I get you to do anything from our discussion here, I want you to understand that. A single instance of "I shouldn't have to say I'm not a white supremacist, or that I condemn Nazis" is acceptable, you shouldn't have to do that in a vacuum. But when you say things that make people wonder, and repeatedly refuse to just say it so people can move on, that's what people have a problem with. It's clear we'll absolutely disagree here. In no way would a normal person conclude that my posting behavior means I look favorably on white supremacist ideology. You've got a little bit of soul searching to do on that one. I never "thought that's the moment to bring up how awful Antifa was," you're misremembering. I am under no obligation to weigh in promptly when I agree with what's being said, or I'm assumed to be supremacist scum. You're way out of line here and I hope you realize that in time. When I do post, as I did post, doing that and you miss it, I'm not going to help correct your mistake every time. It's on you if you skim over my posts and miss them in the moving thread, then come to the conclusion "Hey, I don't remember Dang strongly condemning this shit. He probably agrees with it!"--without first doing a search to check and see. Handy feature, that search function by poster. In fourteen clicks you can save yourself from insulting another poster and looking like a race-baiting hyperpartisan. I'm not saying you're a white supremacist. I'm not saying you look favorably on them, and I never said you agree with them. You're making assumptions and projections on me that simply aren't true. There's a difference between saying something you said/did looks bad because of X reason, and saying that you are a practitioner of bad thing X. You make no distinction between them in your conversations in this thread, and constantly bemoan how everyone accuses you of being a nazi sympathizer. If you want me to think you're up for a genuine discussion on positions, stop being so quick to make the leap and attack everyone because you think they're trolling you. This is just you being obtuse. Accusing someone of being a Nazi sympathizer isn't as bad as literaly calling them a nazi? They're both extremely charged acusations that won't get anyone anywhere good and you have to know that much at least. Please don't misunderstand. That's not what I'm saying, and I'm not accusing Danglars of being either of these things. If you don't want people to misunderstand that you are accusing them of being a white supremacist sympathizer then don't tell them that you think they look favorably on them.
Except I never said that. I said there's a difference between "Hey, you said something that shifts the conversation in a way that I find dubious, would you care to clarify" and "You know what, I think you're just a Nazi".
|
On September 23 2017 14:58 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 14:43 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2017 14:04 LegalLord wrote:
If trolls constantly ask me inane questions I also refuse to answer them. The result is almost always that such people assume the least charitable interpretation they can come up with and live by it. But it hardly is telling or meaningful in any way. From what I've seen that's not far from Danglars and the current wave of assuming he was supporting the neo-Nazis.
Reflecting the actual political climate, this thread tends to have an endless supply of uncharitable and aggressive assertion that anyone who doesn't agree is the one who is truly evil. When you're done with the uncharitable insinuations disguised as questions, I can see how a newcomer sees it and thinks there's some nefarious dodge at play. On September 23 2017 14:06 NewSunshine wrote:
There's reason people continue to ask you the question, it's because the gestalt of your posting at times defies the idea that you actually condemn white supremacist ideology. I'm not going to call you a white supremacist, that's a very heavy term, and I don't appreciate that you insinuated I ever did that. But it stinks a little bit when actual neo-nazis commit violence and kill someone, and they're the reason we're having the conversation, and you think that's the moment to bring up how awful the Antifa are. As though they had anything to do with what happened. People would rather you make things clear when this happens.
People also continue to ask you these questions because of another thing you mentioned. Sometimes the thread moves very quickly, and they miss the one post you took to address it. This would be fine, mea culpa, et cetera, but you're usually at the center of these fast-moving discussions, and you waste no time going back to your usual slippery ways. You're the one who makes it get lost.
Genuinely asking someone a question on their position, getting an answer, and moving on, is one thing. Asking a question about someone's thoughts on Antifa, in the middle of a discussion about neo-nazis, takes on an entirely different context. If I get you to do anything from our discussion here, I want you to understand that. A single instance of "I shouldn't have to say I'm not a white supremacist, or that I condemn Nazis" is acceptable, you shouldn't have to do that in a vacuum. But when you say things that make people wonder, and repeatedly refuse to just say it so people can move on, that's what people have a problem with. It's clear we'll absolutely disagree here. In no way would a normal person conclude that my posting behavior means I look favorably on white supremacist ideology. You've got a little bit of soul searching to do on that one. I never "thought that's the moment to bring up how awful Antifa was," you're misremembering. I am under no obligation to weigh in promptly when I agree with what's being said, or I'm assumed to be supremacist scum. You're way out of line here and I hope you realize that in time. When I do post, as I did post, doing that and you miss it, I'm not going to help correct your mistake every time. It's on you if you skim over my posts and miss them in the moving thread, then come to the conclusion "Hey, I don't remember Dang strongly condemning this shit. He probably agrees with it!"--without first doing a search to check and see. Handy feature, that search function by poster. In fourteen clicks you can save yourself from insulting another poster and looking like a race-baiting hyperpartisan. I'm not saying you're a white supremacist. I'm not saying you look favorably on them, and I never said you agree with them. You're making assumptions and projections on me that simply aren't true. There's a difference between saying something you said/did looks bad because of X reason, and saying that you are a practitioner of bad thing X. You make no distinction between them in your conversations in this thread, and constantly bemoan how everyone accuses you of being a nazi sympathizer. Anyone who has done so, I would not agree with them. I don't know you well enough. If you want me to think you're up for a genuine discussion on positions, stop being so quick to make the leap and attack everyone because you think they're trolling you.
Clearly when you say something I did adds up to making "the gestalt of your posting at times defies the idea that you actually condemn white supremacist ideology," you're opening yourself up to argument. I disagree. There is nothing about my posting behavior that would confuse a neutral observer or make him jump to such a negative charge. But obviously your persistence on that point is not really open to debate in your mind yet (If I may be permitted to NewSunshee a little: "because you refused to answer my other points and deflect"), so I'll drop it. I've provided the only possible context that you might still not have an ax to grind and miss the point, so refer back to that if you seek more clarity or make your position open to debate. I, of course, won't say "the gestalt of NewSunshine's posting at times defies the idea that he actually condemns ANTIFA ideology" because I won't resort to insulting language that I won't immediately link the proof of, however many asterisks come before it.
Please know that cloaking the "I'm not saying you're a Nazi, but I'm saying the totality of your posting sometimes makes me think you don't actually condemn them" doesn't actually help your case. It just means you deal in weaseling insinuations and play fast and loose with denigrating language. I'm not saying I'm going to end my posting with this one, but I will say the gestalt of your posting shows a remarkable indifference to actual consideration of stigmatizing terms you hold over others.
|
On September 23 2017 15:10 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2017 15:08 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 15:05 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 15:01 Sermokala wrote:On September 23 2017 14:58 NewSunshine wrote:On September 23 2017 14:43 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2017 14:04 LegalLord wrote:
If trolls constantly ask me inane questions I also refuse to answer them. The result is almost always that such people assume the least charitable interpretation they can come up with and live by it. But it hardly is telling or meaningful in any way. From what I've seen that's not far from Danglars and the current wave of assuming he was supporting the neo-Nazis.
Reflecting the actual political climate, this thread tends to have an endless supply of uncharitable and aggressive assertion that anyone who doesn't agree is the one who is truly evil. When you're done with the uncharitable insinuations disguised as questions, I can see how a newcomer sees it and thinks there's some nefarious dodge at play. On September 23 2017 14:06 NewSunshine wrote:
There's reason people continue to ask you the question, it's because the gestalt of your posting at times defies the idea that you actually condemn white supremacist ideology. I'm not going to call you a white supremacist, that's a very heavy term, and I don't appreciate that you insinuated I ever did that. But it stinks a little bit when actual neo-nazis commit violence and kill someone, and they're the reason we're having the conversation, and you think that's the moment to bring up how awful the Antifa are. As though they had anything to do with what happened. People would rather you make things clear when this happens.
People also continue to ask you these questions because of another thing you mentioned. Sometimes the thread moves very quickly, and they miss the one post you took to address it. This would be fine, mea culpa, et cetera, but you're usually at the center of these fast-moving discussions, and you waste no time going back to your usual slippery ways. You're the one who makes it get lost.
Genuinely asking someone a question on their position, getting an answer, and moving on, is one thing. Asking a question about someone's thoughts on Antifa, in the middle of a discussion about neo-nazis, takes on an entirely different context. If I get you to do anything from our discussion here, I want you to understand that. A single instance of "I shouldn't have to say I'm not a white supremacist, or that I condemn Nazis" is acceptable, you shouldn't have to do that in a vacuum. But when you say things that make people wonder, and repeatedly refuse to just say it so people can move on, that's what people have a problem with. It's clear we'll absolutely disagree here. In no way would a normal person conclude that my posting behavior means I look favorably on white supremacist ideology. You've got a little bit of soul searching to do on that one. I never "thought that's the moment to bring up how awful Antifa was," you're misremembering. I am under no obligation to weigh in promptly when I agree with what's being said, or I'm assumed to be supremacist scum. You're way out of line here and I hope you realize that in time. When I do post, as I did post, doing that and you miss it, I'm not going to help correct your mistake every time. It's on you if you skim over my posts and miss them in the moving thread, then come to the conclusion "Hey, I don't remember Dang strongly condemning this shit. He probably agrees with it!"--without first doing a search to check and see. Handy feature, that search function by poster. In fourteen clicks you can save yourself from insulting another poster and looking like a race-baiting hyperpartisan. I'm not saying you're a white supremacist. I'm not saying you look favorably on them, and I never said you agree with them. You're making assumptions and projections on me that simply aren't true. There's a difference between saying something you said/did looks bad because of X reason, and saying that you are a practitioner of bad thing X. You make no distinction between them in your conversations in this thread, and constantly bemoan how everyone accuses you of being a nazi sympathizer. If you want me to think you're up for a genuine discussion on positions, stop being so quick to make the leap and attack everyone because you think they're trolling you. This is just you being obtuse. Accusing someone of being a Nazi sympathizer isn't as bad as literaly calling them a nazi? They're both extremely charged acusations that won't get anyone anywhere good and you have to know that much at least. Please don't misunderstand. That's not what I'm saying, and I'm not accusing Danglars of being either of these things. If you don't want people to misunderstand that you are accusing them of being a white supremacist sympathizer then don't tell them that you think they look favorably on them. This comes down to the person being clear when responding in the first place. If you don't give a direct answer, then assumptions are made. You can't fault Sunshine when someone else is being vague and it obscures their true intention. I'd rather assume and move on than wait patiently and never get a reply. I'll correct my opinion when I've been answered. People are flexible like that.
Assumptions don't just start when someone responds to your post they start when you post. I'm faulting Starshine for being vague and then responding to the assumptions made about his post in a way that assumes that he was understood in the first place. Assuming the worst about others and confirming that assumption when you don't get a response isn't flexibility It's the opposite of flexibility.
|
I'm expecting the wriggling on this issue in debates and townhalls to be entertaining, particularly with drinking games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
