|
On September 23 2018 09:31 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2018 08:50 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2018 04:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 07 2018 21:33 iamthedave wrote:On September 01 2018 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:
I suppose positive peace is Left and Right deciding their differences are inconsequential and happily walking hand in hand into the sunset of a brighter America.
Which is not going to happen in a million years.
Also, why does it increasingly feel that this thread is becoming an offshoot of the US pol thread and not strictly about its moderation. GH is right on the negative peace part, and the response to him mentioning it illustrates his point (conveniently). I can't remember the last time anyone 'won' an argument with a political rival in the thread. The only time it really seems to happen is with people who are allied politically but differ on points. Like GH won several people over after several iterations of the Abolish The Police diatribe evolved into a proper discussion. Danglars vs Plansix, say, always follows the pattern of argument until Danglars says 'and I am now done with you'. XDaunt has done the same thing, and I've seen a leftish poster or two do the same to them. No hearts nor minds are changed. It's just people being angry with each other, declaring victory, then running off into an imaginary sunset, or lapsing into sullen silence because they're tired. Or in GH's case in the past, as he seemed incapable of getting tired out, reaching a stage of transcendental rage and getting threadbanned. A lot of people here think their points are smarter than they are or that they construct better arguments than they do, or simply don't care what anyone else has to say because they've already decided that they're right. If you have a seeming peace because nobody who disagrees can be bothered to voice their opinion, you have no actual peace, no settled issue. The 'cultural' violence remains. See: silent Trump voters, at least conceptually, or the silent Brexiteers for an example closer to home. GH is actually a good example for negative peace. He's largely been chased out by often unearned hostility to what he says and lots of thread bans (many of them justly earned, some not). I've seen his opinions change on a topic or two, but not often, and plenty of cases of people digging their feet in against him despite being unable to formulate a decent argument against what he's saying even on the occasions when he's been wrong. Vitriol and snark comes out a bit too often, from all sides instead of people being willing to admit when they can't argue effectively and looking for sources or doing further reading to come up with one. I've always come here mostly to see what actual Americans say about their political situation, and learn more about topics that interest me but which I have inherently limited perspective on, so I find it enjoyable enough. Posters like GH, Danglars and xDaunt are on the frequently banned list for an inordinately high frequency of posts consisting entirely of some permutations of "you're misunderstanding me" and "I already told you, go back and read my first post". For the most part, those long-winded pages of "discussions" that there used to be are just a lot of obtuse avoidance. The US pol thread may seem quieter, but it's basically the same as the last few years minus the cruft. Nah, the lib shitposters are more numerous and get less blowback for posting in hyperbolic or sarcastic ways. An even playing field would clear people like me from the banned list (and most likely GH too), or add 5-6 people along with me to it regularly. I've come to accept the double standard, since attempts at promoting more viewpoint diversity among the moderators have failed. And they still catch the absolute lowest version of lib shitposters, so at least the uneven playing field has a bottom. Some of us learned at a young age that when when you start thinking "everyone else is wrong! It's never me!", it's time to start looking into whether it maybe, just maybe, is the other way around. Your warnings and bans have always stated a reason, maybe you should look into those. If you still want to go down this road, then at least provide evidence for what you consider "lib shitposting" which doesn't get cracked down upon like your unfairly treated poor yourself.
This is what I'm talking about.
Danglars says:
An even playing field would clear people like me from the banned list (and most likely GH too), or add 5-6 people along with me to it regularly.
which generates a response that mischaracterizes his argument as
"everyone else is wrong! It's never me!"
Danglars shouldn't even respond to that since it's clear already it's an argument in bad faith, but if he does with something comparably shitposty he'll be the one in the wrong. (usually what happens next is) 3 people will come and say how they wouldn't have gone on arguing how he thinks he's never wrong if he was more clear and get upset when it's pointed out to them that's not what he was arguing and they would have known that if they read a conversation before opining on the post/poster. When they directly quote it there's not really an excuse for them having not read it.
This happens a LOT.
|
On September 23 2018 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2018 09:31 Excludos wrote:On September 23 2018 08:50 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2018 04:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 07 2018 21:33 iamthedave wrote:On September 01 2018 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:
I suppose positive peace is Left and Right deciding their differences are inconsequential and happily walking hand in hand into the sunset of a brighter America.
Which is not going to happen in a million years.
Also, why does it increasingly feel that this thread is becoming an offshoot of the US pol thread and not strictly about its moderation. GH is right on the negative peace part, and the response to him mentioning it illustrates his point (conveniently). I can't remember the last time anyone 'won' an argument with a political rival in the thread. The only time it really seems to happen is with people who are allied politically but differ on points. Like GH won several people over after several iterations of the Abolish The Police diatribe evolved into a proper discussion. Danglars vs Plansix, say, always follows the pattern of argument until Danglars says 'and I am now done with you'. XDaunt has done the same thing, and I've seen a leftish poster or two do the same to them. No hearts nor minds are changed. It's just people being angry with each other, declaring victory, then running off into an imaginary sunset, or lapsing into sullen silence because they're tired. Or in GH's case in the past, as he seemed incapable of getting tired out, reaching a stage of transcendental rage and getting threadbanned. A lot of people here think their points are smarter than they are or that they construct better arguments than they do, or simply don't care what anyone else has to say because they've already decided that they're right. If you have a seeming peace because nobody who disagrees can be bothered to voice their opinion, you have no actual peace, no settled issue. The 'cultural' violence remains. See: silent Trump voters, at least conceptually, or the silent Brexiteers for an example closer to home. GH is actually a good example for negative peace. He's largely been chased out by often unearned hostility to what he says and lots of thread bans (many of them justly earned, some not). I've seen his opinions change on a topic or two, but not often, and plenty of cases of people digging their feet in against him despite being unable to formulate a decent argument against what he's saying even on the occasions when he's been wrong. Vitriol and snark comes out a bit too often, from all sides instead of people being willing to admit when they can't argue effectively and looking for sources or doing further reading to come up with one. I've always come here mostly to see what actual Americans say about their political situation, and learn more about topics that interest me but which I have inherently limited perspective on, so I find it enjoyable enough. Posters like GH, Danglars and xDaunt are on the frequently banned list for an inordinately high frequency of posts consisting entirely of some permutations of "you're misunderstanding me" and "I already told you, go back and read my first post". For the most part, those long-winded pages of "discussions" that there used to be are just a lot of obtuse avoidance. The US pol thread may seem quieter, but it's basically the same as the last few years minus the cruft. Nah, the lib shitposters are more numerous and get less blowback for posting in hyperbolic or sarcastic ways. An even playing field would clear people like me from the banned list (and most likely GH too), or add 5-6 people along with me to it regularly. I've come to accept the double standard, since attempts at promoting more viewpoint diversity among the moderators have failed. And they still catch the absolute lowest version of lib shitposters, so at least the uneven playing field has a bottom. Some of us learned at a young age that when when you start thinking "everyone else is wrong! It's never me!", it's time to start looking into whether it maybe, just maybe, is the other way around. Your warnings and bans have always stated a reason, maybe you should look into those. If you still want to go down this road, then at least provide evidence for what you consider "lib shitposting" which doesn't get cracked down upon like your unfairly treated poor yourself. This is what I'm talking about. Danglars says: Show nested quote +An even playing field would clear people like me from the banned list (and most likely GH too), or add 5-6 people along with me to it regularly. which generates a response that mischaracterizes his argument as Danglars shouldn't even respond to that since it's clear already it's an argument in bad faith. But if he does with something comparably shitposty he'll be the one in the wrong, (usually what happens next is) 3 people will come and say how they wouldn't have gone on arguing how he thinks he's never wrong if he was more clear and get upset when it's pointed out to them that's not what he was arguing and they would have known that if they read a conversation before opining on the post/poster. When they directly quote it there's not really an excuse for them having not read it. This happens a LOT.
Only problem with that is that, unless my memory is completely failing me at 3am here, Danglar has had numerous warnings and bans before... So from that sense that argument doesn't make any sense one way or another. If he hasn't, then I apologise. But I still want to see proof of this inequality he's talking about.
I'm not going to pretend I'm some saint either. I've had at least 2 warnings in here, and numerous bans from other threads. Difference is I don't yell about inequality when it happens, and try to improve from them instead. I asked a very direct question: He was making an accusation, and I wanted some proof, and this is somehow "in bad faith".
If Danglars doesn't approve of your message here, then you need to read up on the "man covered in shit" argument. Because you just took someone else's post and made it look a lot worse by trying to be on his side.
Edit: I guess I should entertain you with exactly how you made it a lot worse. Danglar's post, as it stands, is a completely reasonable and legit post as long as he can provide evidence for his accusation. The way you made it worse by jumping into his defence was to immediately excuse his right to do so by yelling how ridiculous that is and telling him not to respond. Whatever your intention was the effect is that it makes him look like he has nothing and almost sort of guilty for it too, when in reality you could have just waited for him to respond for himself.
|
On September 23 2018 10:01 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2018 09:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 23 2018 09:31 Excludos wrote:On September 23 2018 08:50 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2018 04:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 07 2018 21:33 iamthedave wrote:On September 01 2018 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:
I suppose positive peace is Left and Right deciding their differences are inconsequential and happily walking hand in hand into the sunset of a brighter America.
Which is not going to happen in a million years.
Also, why does it increasingly feel that this thread is becoming an offshoot of the US pol thread and not strictly about its moderation. GH is right on the negative peace part, and the response to him mentioning it illustrates his point (conveniently). I can't remember the last time anyone 'won' an argument with a political rival in the thread. The only time it really seems to happen is with people who are allied politically but differ on points. Like GH won several people over after several iterations of the Abolish The Police diatribe evolved into a proper discussion. Danglars vs Plansix, say, always follows the pattern of argument until Danglars says 'and I am now done with you'. XDaunt has done the same thing, and I've seen a leftish poster or two do the same to them. No hearts nor minds are changed. It's just people being angry with each other, declaring victory, then running off into an imaginary sunset, or lapsing into sullen silence because they're tired. Or in GH's case in the past, as he seemed incapable of getting tired out, reaching a stage of transcendental rage and getting threadbanned. A lot of people here think their points are smarter than they are or that they construct better arguments than they do, or simply don't care what anyone else has to say because they've already decided that they're right. If you have a seeming peace because nobody who disagrees can be bothered to voice their opinion, you have no actual peace, no settled issue. The 'cultural' violence remains. See: silent Trump voters, at least conceptually, or the silent Brexiteers for an example closer to home. GH is actually a good example for negative peace. He's largely been chased out by often unearned hostility to what he says and lots of thread bans (many of them justly earned, some not). I've seen his opinions change on a topic or two, but not often, and plenty of cases of people digging their feet in against him despite being unable to formulate a decent argument against what he's saying even on the occasions when he's been wrong. Vitriol and snark comes out a bit too often, from all sides instead of people being willing to admit when they can't argue effectively and looking for sources or doing further reading to come up with one. I've always come here mostly to see what actual Americans say about their political situation, and learn more about topics that interest me but which I have inherently limited perspective on, so I find it enjoyable enough. Posters like GH, Danglars and xDaunt are on the frequently banned list for an inordinately high frequency of posts consisting entirely of some permutations of "you're misunderstanding me" and "I already told you, go back and read my first post". For the most part, those long-winded pages of "discussions" that there used to be are just a lot of obtuse avoidance. The US pol thread may seem quieter, but it's basically the same as the last few years minus the cruft. Nah, the lib shitposters are more numerous and get less blowback for posting in hyperbolic or sarcastic ways. An even playing field would clear people like me from the banned list (and most likely GH too), or add 5-6 people along with me to it regularly. I've come to accept the double standard, since attempts at promoting more viewpoint diversity among the moderators have failed. And they still catch the absolute lowest version of lib shitposters, so at least the uneven playing field has a bottom. Some of us learned at a young age that when when you start thinking "everyone else is wrong! It's never me!", it's time to start looking into whether it maybe, just maybe, is the other way around. Your warnings and bans have always stated a reason, maybe you should look into those. If you still want to go down this road, then at least provide evidence for what you consider "lib shitposting" which doesn't get cracked down upon like your unfairly treated poor yourself. This is what I'm talking about. Danglars says: An even playing field would clear people like me from the banned list (and most likely GH too), or add 5-6 people along with me to it regularly. which generates a response that mischaracterizes his argument as "everyone else is wrong! It's never me!" Danglars shouldn't even respond to that since it's clear already it's an argument in bad faith. But if he does with something comparably shitposty he'll be the one in the wrong, (usually what happens next is) 3 people will come and say how they wouldn't have gone on arguing how he thinks he's never wrong if he was more clear and get upset when it's pointed out to them that's not what he was arguing and they would have known that if they read a conversation before opining on the post/poster. When they directly quote it there's not really an excuse for them having not read it. This happens a LOT. Only problem with that is that, unless my memory is completely failing me at 3am here, Danglar has had numerous warnings and bans before... I'm not going to pretend I'm some saint either. I've had at least 2 warnings in here, and numerous bans from other threads. Difference is I don't yell about inequality when it happens, and try to improve from them instead. I asked a very direct question: He was making an accusation, and I wanted some proof, and this is somehow "in bad faith". If Danglars doesn't approve of your message here, then you need to read up on the "man covered in shit" argument. Because you just took someone else's post and made it look a lot worse by trying to be on his side.
That doesn't matter to my argument, which while Danglars and your posts serve as examples, isn't limited to this particular exchange.
Danglars argument in general isn't really relevant to my point either. My point is about the genesis of the streams of crap posting.
I was quite specific and even highlighted exactly what made your post bad faith, it wasn't you asking a direct question (which by the way I think is a perfectly reasonable request).
|
On September 23 2018 09:31 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2018 08:50 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2018 04:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 07 2018 21:33 iamthedave wrote:On September 01 2018 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:
I suppose positive peace is Left and Right deciding their differences are inconsequential and happily walking hand in hand into the sunset of a brighter America.
Which is not going to happen in a million years.
Also, why does it increasingly feel that this thread is becoming an offshoot of the US pol thread and not strictly about its moderation. GH is right on the negative peace part, and the response to him mentioning it illustrates his point (conveniently). I can't remember the last time anyone 'won' an argument with a political rival in the thread. The only time it really seems to happen is with people who are allied politically but differ on points. Like GH won several people over after several iterations of the Abolish The Police diatribe evolved into a proper discussion. Danglars vs Plansix, say, always follows the pattern of argument until Danglars says 'and I am now done with you'. XDaunt has done the same thing, and I've seen a leftish poster or two do the same to them. No hearts nor minds are changed. It's just people being angry with each other, declaring victory, then running off into an imaginary sunset, or lapsing into sullen silence because they're tired. Or in GH's case in the past, as he seemed incapable of getting tired out, reaching a stage of transcendental rage and getting threadbanned. A lot of people here think their points are smarter than they are or that they construct better arguments than they do, or simply don't care what anyone else has to say because they've already decided that they're right. If you have a seeming peace because nobody who disagrees can be bothered to voice their opinion, you have no actual peace, no settled issue. The 'cultural' violence remains. See: silent Trump voters, at least conceptually, or the silent Brexiteers for an example closer to home. GH is actually a good example for negative peace. He's largely been chased out by often unearned hostility to what he says and lots of thread bans (many of them justly earned, some not). I've seen his opinions change on a topic or two, but not often, and plenty of cases of people digging their feet in against him despite being unable to formulate a decent argument against what he's saying even on the occasions when he's been wrong. Vitriol and snark comes out a bit too often, from all sides instead of people being willing to admit when they can't argue effectively and looking for sources or doing further reading to come up with one. I've always come here mostly to see what actual Americans say about their political situation, and learn more about topics that interest me but which I have inherently limited perspective on, so I find it enjoyable enough. Posters like GH, Danglars and xDaunt are on the frequently banned list for an inordinately high frequency of posts consisting entirely of some permutations of "you're misunderstanding me" and "I already told you, go back and read my first post". For the most part, those long-winded pages of "discussions" that there used to be are just a lot of obtuse avoidance. The US pol thread may seem quieter, but it's basically the same as the last few years minus the cruft. Nah, the lib shitposters are more numerous and get less blowback for posting in hyperbolic or sarcastic ways. An even playing field would clear people like me from the banned list (and most likely GH too), or add 5-6 people along with me to it regularly. I've come to accept the double standard, since attempts at promoting more viewpoint diversity among the moderators have failed. And they still catch the absolute lowest version of lib shitposters, so at least the uneven playing field has a bottom. Some of us learned at a young age that when when you start thinking "everyone else is wrong! It's never me!", it's time to start looking into whether it maybe, just maybe, is the other way around. Your warnings and bans have always stated a reason, maybe you should look into those. If you still want to go down this road, then at least provide evidence for what you consider "lib shitposting" which doesn't get cracked down upon like your unfairly treated poor yourself.
Yes. I learned at a young age to compare ban reasons to the behavior of others in the thread, and see if the kinds of things that got me in trouble got others in trouble. And frankly, all this belittling about young kids learning is an accurate description of the low bar you set for you own posting. Let me give you an example: You should probably ask mommy why she doesn't accuse others of not having learned something "at a young age," and why she didn't pass standards of politeness on to you.
Let me give you another example: You apparently didn't learn at a young age to seek out the opinion of others on this issue, where multiple people across the spectrum gave their perspective that agreed. Now do you understand? Is this your idea of posting not like a shitposter?
Anyways, just to put on a clinic:
On August 31 2018 06:04 Excludos wrote:
A. The NRA really are the devil. You can tell by their actions and words..
On August 28 2018 01:14 Excludos wrote:
Yet politicians are being paid behind your backs to keep the gun sales going. Who cares about a classroom full of children, a gay nightclub, or some nerds playing video games, when you can cash in on their deaths, amirite?!
Fucking despicable.
Let me tell you, if any gun-rights poster had said Everytown For Gun Safety really was the devil, or you don't care about deaths of children unless you can profit from their deaths in political victories, they would be warned and perhaps tempbanned.
On June 20 2018 06:53 Excludos wrote:
edit: I'm not going to provide a source, because every single time I do I get a warning for it no matter how much discussion it provides. I think this rule is having the opposite effect than planned guys.
Let me rephrase your argument here. Excludos says Excludos shouldn't whine about all his warnings, because everybody else has managed to start providing context for discussion, and he should've learned at a young age that it's time to look at himself for his posting habits.
+ Show Spoiler +On June 08 2018 00:57 Excludos wrote:http://www.newsweek.com/pruitt-trump-asbestos-chemicals-trump-962703Show nested quote +The Environmental Protection Agency will not consider the health risks and impacts of asbestos already in the environment when evaluating the dangers associated with the chemical compound, Scott Pruitt quietly announced last week. That means asbestos used in tiles, piping and adhesives throughout homes and businesses in the United States will remain largely unchecked and unaccounted for. Nearly 15,000 Americans die each year from asbestos-related diseases, but President Donald Trump has called the substance "100 percent safe, once applied." Oh my god is this man even capable of doing anything which isn't just straight up moustache twirling evil for his own benefits? User was warned for this post. You can just imagine all the discussion provided by "straight up moustache twirling evil."
+ Show Spoiler +And yes, all the sarcastic use of youth belittling is meant to show your shitposty style.
|
On September 23 2018 10:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2018 09:31 Excludos wrote:On September 23 2018 08:50 Danglars wrote:On September 23 2018 04:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 07 2018 21:33 iamthedave wrote:On September 01 2018 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:
I suppose positive peace is Left and Right deciding their differences are inconsequential and happily walking hand in hand into the sunset of a brighter America.
Which is not going to happen in a million years.
Also, why does it increasingly feel that this thread is becoming an offshoot of the US pol thread and not strictly about its moderation. GH is right on the negative peace part, and the response to him mentioning it illustrates his point (conveniently). I can't remember the last time anyone 'won' an argument with a political rival in the thread. The only time it really seems to happen is with people who are allied politically but differ on points. Like GH won several people over after several iterations of the Abolish The Police diatribe evolved into a proper discussion. Danglars vs Plansix, say, always follows the pattern of argument until Danglars says 'and I am now done with you'. XDaunt has done the same thing, and I've seen a leftish poster or two do the same to them. No hearts nor minds are changed. It's just people being angry with each other, declaring victory, then running off into an imaginary sunset, or lapsing into sullen silence because they're tired. Or in GH's case in the past, as he seemed incapable of getting tired out, reaching a stage of transcendental rage and getting threadbanned. A lot of people here think their points are smarter than they are or that they construct better arguments than they do, or simply don't care what anyone else has to say because they've already decided that they're right. If you have a seeming peace because nobody who disagrees can be bothered to voice their opinion, you have no actual peace, no settled issue. The 'cultural' violence remains. See: silent Trump voters, at least conceptually, or the silent Brexiteers for an example closer to home. GH is actually a good example for negative peace. He's largely been chased out by often unearned hostility to what he says and lots of thread bans (many of them justly earned, some not). I've seen his opinions change on a topic or two, but not often, and plenty of cases of people digging their feet in against him despite being unable to formulate a decent argument against what he's saying even on the occasions when he's been wrong. Vitriol and snark comes out a bit too often, from all sides instead of people being willing to admit when they can't argue effectively and looking for sources or doing further reading to come up with one. I've always come here mostly to see what actual Americans say about their political situation, and learn more about topics that interest me but which I have inherently limited perspective on, so I find it enjoyable enough. Posters like GH, Danglars and xDaunt are on the frequently banned list for an inordinately high frequency of posts consisting entirely of some permutations of "you're misunderstanding me" and "I already told you, go back and read my first post". For the most part, those long-winded pages of "discussions" that there used to be are just a lot of obtuse avoidance. The US pol thread may seem quieter, but it's basically the same as the last few years minus the cruft. Nah, the lib shitposters are more numerous and get less blowback for posting in hyperbolic or sarcastic ways. An even playing field would clear people like me from the banned list (and most likely GH too), or add 5-6 people along with me to it regularly. I've come to accept the double standard, since attempts at promoting more viewpoint diversity among the moderators have failed. And they still catch the absolute lowest version of lib shitposters, so at least the uneven playing field has a bottom. Some of us learned at a young age that when when you start thinking "everyone else is wrong! It's never me!", it's time to start looking into whether it maybe, just maybe, is the other way around. Your warnings and bans have always stated a reason, maybe you should look into those. If you still want to go down this road, then at least provide evidence for what you consider "lib shitposting" which doesn't get cracked down upon like your unfairly treated poor yourself. Yes. I learned at a young age to compare ban reasons to the behavior of others in the thread, and see if the kinds of things that got me in trouble got others in trouble. And frankly, all this belittling about young kids learning is an accurate description of the low bar you set for you own posting. Let me give you an example: You should probably ask mommy why she doesn't accuse others of not having learned something "at a young age," and why she didn't pass standards of politeness on to you. Let me give you another example: You apparently didn't learn at a young age to seek out the opinion of others on this issue, where multiple people across the spectrum gave their perspective that agreed. Now do you understand? Is this your idea of posting not like a shitposter? Anyways, just to put on a clinic: Show nested quote +On August 31 2018 06:04 Excludos wrote:
A. The NRA really are the devil. You can tell by their actions and words.. Show nested quote +On August 28 2018 01:14 Excludos wrote:
Yet politicians are being paid behind your backs to keep the gun sales going. Who cares about a classroom full of children, a gay nightclub, or some nerds playing video games, when you can cash in on their deaths, amirite?!
Fucking despicable. Let me tell you, if any gun-rights poster had said Everytown For Gun Safety really was the devil, or you don't care about deaths of children unless you can profit from their deaths in political victories, they would be warned and perhaps tempbanned. Show nested quote +On June 20 2018 06:53 Excludos wrote:
edit: I'm not going to provide a source, because every single time I do I get a warning for it no matter how much discussion it provides. I think this rule is having the opposite effect than planned guys. Let me rephrase your argument here. Excludos says Excludos shouldn't whine about all his warnings, because everybody else has managed to start providing context for discussion, and he should've learned at a young age that it's time to look at himself for his posting habits. + Show Spoiler +On June 08 2018 00:57 Excludos wrote:http://www.newsweek.com/pruitt-trump-asbestos-chemicals-trump-962703Show nested quote +The Environmental Protection Agency will not consider the health risks and impacts of asbestos already in the environment when evaluating the dangers associated with the chemical compound, Scott Pruitt quietly announced last week. That means asbestos used in tiles, piping and adhesives throughout homes and businesses in the United States will remain largely unchecked and unaccounted for. Nearly 15,000 Americans die each year from asbestos-related diseases, but President Donald Trump has called the substance "100 percent safe, once applied." Oh my god is this man even capable of doing anything which isn't just straight up moustache twirling evil for his own benefits? User was warned for this post. You can just imagine all the discussion provided by "straight up moustache twirling evil." And yes, all the sarcastic use of youth belittling is meant to show your shitposty style.
1. You apparently didn't learn at a young age to seek out the opinion of others on this issue Wtf are you on about I'm literally talking to you right now.
2. You, yet again, paint me as a "vicious" anti gun rights advocate, while completely failing to understand, despite multiple repeats, that I not only am a gun enthusiast and think it should be legal to own guns, I also own several myself. I am completely smash dash in the middle of the spectrum where I want the right people to own guns if they go through the required training to do so. I'm not attacking the NRA because I'm a evil leftist, I'm attacking them because they literally proven scumbags. The fact that you somehow take that personal is beyond me. It's like defending PETA. It doesn't matter if you agree with their surface level message, the fact that PETA are proven scumbags who should never be allowed within a mile of an animal should not be taken personally by anyone who's not equally crazy as them.
3. You literally took a post of me getting a warning as proof of you and/or GH being treated unfairly harshly. What? Is this your smoking gun? Your grand proof? Me getting a warning is somehow you not being treated fairly? Why do I bother what an absolute joke.
|
Just to point out, this is an apples to oranges comparison. Few people get warned for the random shit-posts unless they cross some specific lines. And that includes people like Danglars and GH.
You both get banned for continuous behaviour. And that's basically true of everyone that's been thread banned that didn't just spam a tweet http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/closed-threads/535284-us-politics-mega-thread-ban-list
If you want the snarky one-lines gone, you're free to petition the mods on that.
|
This thread is the long winded petition of zeflin to get the petty one liners gone. It doesn't work.
|
Sometimes the one liners are really good.
|
On September 24 2018 23:08 Plansix wrote:
Sometimes the one liners are really good.
This +1
|
Danglars being danglars. Whilst claiming victimhood, he rails against the "lib shitposters". Never change Danglars, never change.
Same with GH. Only it's "neolib" or whatever term someone has fed him.
|
On September 25 2018 02:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Danglars being danglars. Whilst claiming victimhood, he rails against the "lib shitposters". Never change Danglars, never change.
Same with GH. Only it's "neolib" or whatever term someone has fed him.
I forgot about posts like these that have 0 substance, and don't engage the argument presented at all other than to reject it without an argument of it's own.
Some posters this is the majority of their posting, or nearly all of it.
|
The US pol thread has been great without you, currently. The same could be said of me, but I'm not the one who is repeatedly banned for legitimate reasons and claiming victimhood.
But hey, whilst we are at it, posts like yours have 0 substance. Why don't you engage with the argument GH? Why are you rejecting mine without an argument of your own? See how that sounds? Have you considered GH, just maybe GH, you are the problem. Just, maybe? Call me maybe.
|
On September 25 2018 02:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2018 02:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Danglars being danglars. Whilst claiming victimhood, he rails against the "lib shitposters". Never change Danglars, never change.
Same with GH. Only it's "neolib" or whatever term someone has fed him. I forgot about posts like these that have 0 substance, and don't engage the argument presented at all other than to reject it without an argument of it's own. Some posters this is the majority of their posting, or nearly all of it.
Well it's not like you or Danglars engage in the arguments presented either now do you? I've yet to see a clear and concise answer to the question I asked 3 times earlier on this very same page. You know you're on thin ice when something like "proof of accusation" isn't something one can expect to receive.
|
On September 25 2018 02:36 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The US pol thread has been great without you, currently. The same could be said of me, but I'm not the one who is repeatedly banned for legitimate reasons and claiming victimhood.
But hey, whilst we are at it, posts like yours have 0 substance. Why don't you engage with the argument GH? Why are you rejecting mine without an argument of your own? See how that sounds? Have you considered GH, just maybe GH, you are the problem. Just, maybe? Call me maybe.
You didn't make one though? Whereas I did with a clear and recent example. It's the failure to see that distinction which makes your posts so vacuous.
On September 25 2018 02:36 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2018 02:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 25 2018 02:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Danglars being danglars. Whilst claiming victimhood, he rails against the "lib shitposters". Never change Danglars, never change.
Same with GH. Only it's "neolib" or whatever term someone has fed him. I forgot about posts like these that have 0 substance, and don't engage the argument presented at all other than to reject it without an argument of it's own. Some posters this is the majority of their posting, or nearly all of it. Well it's not like you or Danglars engage in the arguments presented either now do you? I've yet to see a clear and concise answer to the question I asked 3 times earlier on this very same page. You know you're on thin ice when something like "proof of accusation" isn't something one can expect to receive.
I did respond, quite clearly. You however, did not.
EDIT: We're about 2-3 posts away from someone saying me defending myself against this crap is the reason for the string of shitposting and not the very clear example at the top of the page.
|
My point is fairly simple. It's a short post so I'll quote it and go through it word by word, for your benefit.
On September 25 2018 02:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Danglars being danglars. Whilst claiming victimhood, he rails against the "lib shitposters". Never change Danglars, never change.
Same with GH. Only it's "neolib" or whatever term someone has fed him.
On September 25 2018 02:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Danglars being danglars. Statement: Here I am affirming the person of topic, and his unchanging characteristic.
On September 25 2018 02:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Whilst To denote more than one action is occuring concurrently.
On September 25 2018 02:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:claiming victimhood, Here, the claim is that the previous noun, the person of topic is undergoing an action.
On September 25 2018 02:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
, he rails against the "lib shitposters". Here, the claim is that the person of topic is undergoing another action at the same time.
On September 25 2018 02:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Never change Danglars, never change. Expression commonly used endearingly to denote that an action or person has not changed. In this case it is used to express humour at the situation. A deconstruction that is inextricable from the phrase itself.
On September 25 2018 02:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Same with GH. To denote the repetition of the construction of sentences, but with a change of person of topic.
On September 25 2018 02:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Only it's "neolib" or whatever term someone has fed him. terms and conditions apply.
Isn't this fun! Now it's your turn GH.
|
On September 25 2018 02:55 Dangermousecatdog wrote:My point is fairly simple. It's a short post so I'll quote it and go through it word by word, for your benefit. Show nested quote +On September 25 2018 02:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Danglars being danglars. Whilst claiming victimhood, he rails against the "lib shitposters". Never change Danglars, never change.
Same with GH. Only it's "neolib" or whatever term someone has fed him. Statement: Here I am affirming the person of topic, and his unchanging characteristic. To denote more than one action is occuring concurrently. Here, the claim is that the previous noun, the person of topic is undergoing an action. Show nested quote +On September 25 2018 02:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
, he rails against the "lib shitposters". Here, the claim is that the person of topic is undergoing another action at the same time. Show nested quote +On September 25 2018 02:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Never change Danglars, never change. Expression commonly used endearingly to denote that an action or person has not changed. In this case it is used to express humour at the situation. A deconstruction that is inextricable from the phrase itself. To denote the repetition of the construction of sentences, but with a change of person of topic. Show nested quote +On September 25 2018 02:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Only it's "neolib" or whatever term someone has fed him. terms and conditions apply. Isn't this fun! Now it's your turn GH.
What you have there is an unsupported assertion, but thanks for that.
|
Yes...and now it's supposed to be your turn to argue for and against it. Afterall, everything can be said to be unsupported assertions. But I suppose it's easier for you to read your own words back at you.
On September 25 2018 02:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
I forgot about posts like these that have 0 substance, and don't engage the argument presented at all other than to reject it without an argument of it's own.
Some posters this is the majority of their posting, or nearly all of it.
Says it all really. It was even easier than I thought. Lets see if you have gained any self awareness of why you repeatedly get banned, Maybe, just maybe you are the problem? That the very thing you are accusing everybody else of, is the very thing you are doing?
|
On September 25 2018 02:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2018 02:36 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The US pol thread has been great without you, currently. The same could be said of me, but I'm not the one who is repeatedly banned for legitimate reasons and claiming victimhood.
But hey, whilst we are at it, posts like yours have 0 substance. Why don't you engage with the argument GH? Why are you rejecting mine without an argument of your own? See how that sounds? Have you considered GH, just maybe GH, you are the problem. Just, maybe? Call me maybe. You didn't make one though? Whereas I did with a clear and recent example. It's the failure to see that distinction which makes your posts so vacuous. Show nested quote +On September 25 2018 02:36 Excludos wrote:On September 25 2018 02:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 25 2018 02:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Danglars being danglars. Whilst claiming victimhood, he rails against the "lib shitposters". Never change Danglars, never change.
Same with GH. Only it's "neolib" or whatever term someone has fed him. I forgot about posts like these that have 0 substance, and don't engage the argument presented at all other than to reject it without an argument of it's own. Some posters this is the majority of their posting, or nearly all of it. Well it's not like you or Danglars engage in the arguments presented either now do you? I've yet to see a clear and concise answer to the question I asked 3 times earlier on this very same page. You know you're on thin ice when something like "proof of accusation" isn't something one can expect to receive. I did respond, quite clearly. You however, did not. EDIT: We're about 2-3 posts away from someone saying me defending myself against this crap is the reason for the string of shitposting and not the very clear example at the top of the page.
What? No you certainly have not! Quote me the exact sentence where you respond to me showing proof of the allegations that mods are treating you unfairly. This is the fourth time I'm asking, for the record.
|
On September 25 2018 03:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Yes...and now it's supposed to be your turn to argue for and against it. Afterall, everything can be said to be unsupported assertions. But I suppose it's easier for you to read your own words back at you. Show nested quote +On September 25 2018 02:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
I forgot about posts like these that have 0 substance, and don't engage the argument presented at all other than to reject it without an argument of it's own.
Some posters this is the majority of their posting, or nearly all of it. Says it all really. Lets see if you have gained any self awareness of why you repeatedly get banned, Maybe, just maybe you are the problem? That the very thing you are accusing everybody else of, is the very thing you are doing?
I literally posted an example of what I was talking about, highlighted the specific section that was clearly what I've long described, and you're suggesting that it's the same thing as your post here:
On September 25 2018 02:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Danglars being danglars. Whilst claiming victimhood, he rails against the "lib shitposters". Never change Danglars, never change.
Same with GH. Only it's "neolib" or whatever term someone has fed him.
I have gained some self-awareness and understanding of Seekers patience so this will be the last time I'll respond to this.
I'll close with recognizing the role my not letting things go plays in encouraging bad posts like we've just seen on this page (and immediately after), I just hope that someone can see how this page is a pretty good example of quite a few of the issues I've highlighted over the years.
Most poignantly, the one at the top of the page which gets lost when posts like we've seen from DMCD and others on this page are preferred to posts like mine on this page.
On September 25 2018 03:10 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2018 02:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 25 2018 02:36 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The US pol thread has been great without you, currently. The same could be said of me, but I'm not the one who is repeatedly banned for legitimate reasons and claiming victimhood.
But hey, whilst we are at it, posts like yours have 0 substance. Why don't you engage with the argument GH? Why are you rejecting mine without an argument of your own? See how that sounds? Have you considered GH, just maybe GH, you are the problem. Just, maybe? Call me maybe. You didn't make one though? Whereas I did with a clear and recent example. It's the failure to see that distinction which makes your posts so vacuous. On September 25 2018 02:36 Excludos wrote:On September 25 2018 02:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 25 2018 02:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Danglars being danglars. Whilst claiming victimhood, he rails against the "lib shitposters". Never change Danglars, never change.
Same with GH. Only it's "neolib" or whatever term someone has fed him. I forgot about posts like these that have 0 substance, and don't engage the argument presented at all other than to reject it without an argument of it's own. Some posters this is the majority of their posting, or nearly all of it. Well it's not like you or Danglars engage in the arguments presented either now do you? I've yet to see a clear and concise answer to the question I asked 3 times earlier on this very same page. You know you're on thin ice when something like "proof of accusation" isn't something one can expect to receive. I did respond, quite clearly. You however, did not. EDIT: We're about 2-3 posts away from someone saying me defending myself against this crap is the reason for the string of shitposting and not the very clear example at the top of the page. What? No you certainly have not! Quote me the exact sentence where you respond to me showing proof of the allegations that mods are treating you unfairly. This is the fourth time I'm asking, for the record.
Jock and Farv have opined (pretty much exactly on schedule) so I'll reiterate.
I have gained some self-awareness and understanding of Seekers patience so this will be the last time I'll respond to this.
|
This is exactly what no-one in the us politics thread currently has nostalgia for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
