|
On April 21 2019 01:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2019 08:35 JimmiC wrote:On April 20 2019 07:05 Danglars wrote:On April 20 2019 02:33 Mohdoo wrote:On April 20 2019 01:46 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2019 01:30 Sermokala wrote:
Biff shows clearly that he is he problem in the thread and not daunt. Everything he posted above is about antagonizing xdaunt until he gets banned. Everything he posted above is bathed in prejudged malice twords people he disagrees with shows his intent was to get daunt banned by baiting him.
I mean can anyone not see it as a clear flame bait manifesto? Pretty much everything xDaunt was saying was directly refuted by Muellers report, which he was commenting on what out having read it by his own admission. He got called out on that and went on a rant. While I think a temp ban was a bit heavy handed xDaunt should not have making the statements he did without having read the report himself. I am of the belief that TL's standards are higher than: x: (thing refuted by Mueller report) z: FYI that is refuted by the Mueller report. Did you read it? x: It is not refuted by the Mueller report and I have not read it z: But you are making arguments that we have confirmed are false and you would see that if you read the Mueller report x: no i'm not, y'all are wrong and this is the problem with the left, y'all. where do you go from there? It's just trash. It has no place on TL. I thought he had a point at what was missing from the report, and debating on the conclusions. Several posters could not accept the simple argument and went around denying it or moving to other points. I thought all of it was in keeping with a debate thread. He just should've given up after a couple posts made on the same line. But you're eliding the real point. Is it ever ok to openly wonder why Mohdoo even posts? Can I call you TeamLiquid's version of Jussie Smollett or Stacey Abrams, if I do think you're really beyond the pale of lying or not accepting reality? Is that really conducive to debate? Does it matter if I'm right that you're posting like you were them, or have been bullshitting this whole time? On April 19 2019 11:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Your bad faith is absolutely staggering. I don’t even know why you come here to discuss anymore; at that point you sound like a special Teamliquid version of Sarah Sanders. That's why I questioned if both posters deserved bans or warns. xDaunt's ban was for getting "too heated up." Maybe Biff's would be a personal attack and insult. You can call out bullshit without making a shitpost, and that's exactly what Biff did, and what people that like Biff's politics defend. On April 20 2019 01:30 Sermokala wrote:
Biff shows clearly that he is he problem in the thread and not daunt. Everything he posted above is about antagonizing xdaunt until he gets banned. Everything he posted above is bathed in prejudged malice twords people he disagrees with shows his intent was to get daunt banned by baiting him.
I mean can anyone not see it as a clear flame bait manifesto? On April 20 2019 01:27 Sent. wrote:It’s tiring, it’s sterile, it’s boring and it’s simply shit. And no one is interested in that crap. If it's so uninteresting why can't you (and all the other posters claiming xDaunt and Danglars come with nothing but bad intentions) just stop replying to their posts instead of complaining about the thread being full of xDaunt arguing with posters like you? If you can't find a nice way to say you think the posts are bullshit, how about ignoring the offending post. You're just making the thread shitty and blaming everybody but yourself. I'm really hoping for some mod feedback in this thread, because it's clear that people forgive members of their tribe the same behavior they find offensive in members of the opposing tribe. You can get off the soap box man. I mean your post to complain about bill was pure passive aggressive, and then even now while you're pretending to be all responsible and even handed you throw out some more passive aggressive digs. You are not a good advocate for anyone because of your long history of being a jerk. You're again much mistaken. I said I'd have to wait before rendering judgement precisely because moderators discuss things behind the scenes and some time elapses before they decide whether Biff's behavior was also actionable. You can compare reserving judgement to what passive aggression is when you look at what Seeker called "passive/aggressively hint that some users need to be actioned" in your post here and evilfatsh1t's post here. Show nested quote +On April 20 2019 09:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
From what I can see, is that when people are called out, they dig in and get combative. Then when continued to be made aware that they are wrong, they refuse to accept it. Then we come here and take further digs at the poster in question.
Daunt was called out, by me and m4ini, about his drawing conclusions on a report he had not read and would not accept that. Then Igne comes in and tries to massage the word exonerate as to mean what Daunt wanted it to me. GH follows by accepting Igne's comments and speaks for him, while everyone else has seemingly moved onto something different. Daunt gets banned for harmful language (Danglars should also be warned for his post above, because he essentially did the same thing). I defended Daunt's emotionally outburst.
To sum it all up, posters who can't stand to be called out on bullshit, complain they are being targeted. When in reality, most posters just want to correct their wrong statements and to get a real, definitive answer to questions that give us more of an idea of what they are really trying to speak to. If we ask for clarification, we mean just that because something has been lost. But some people can't accept they were lied to, misinformed, or just plain wrong.
Did I miss anything? You might as well say xDaunt called out Biff's "addict[ion] to Trump impeachment fantasy porn", just as Biff called out xDaunt's "bad faith" and "TeamLiquid version of Sarah Sanders." Also, it's comical that you also think I should be warned for harmful language. Show nested quote +On April 20 2019 15:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well the problem is very simple: the report could be as damning as humanly possible, a few conservative here would keep saying “witch hunt” and “nothingburger”, and I suspect that if the report did exonerate Trump, a few of us liberals would keep saying that he is clearly guilty.
When Barr made his statement we got an avalanche of obnoxious and smug triomphant posts by Danglar and Daunt talking about how stupid we were and who should go to jail among those people who were so, so, so unfair to Donald.
When it appeared that, well, Barr totally misrepresented the report because of course he did, and that actually it’s pretty horrifying, Daunt just started to fight in an emotional and incoherent way instead of backing up.
Maybe if in your universe, this report could never be bad, or never be good for Trump because you too biased to accept that the guy is indeed a criminal, or indeed innocent, then you shouldn’t post here. Period. Yes, and if you think you're just attacking Barr because he said the truth about the report, of course you're going to say you just don't like Barr for not complying in acting to remove a president you dislike. That's how differing views on the same thing work. I'm capable of examining the issues and calling out bias in others, as much as you wish that right was reserved to yourself. If you would practice as you preached here, you'd not resort to insults and actually act like you had arguments and not just accusations of bias.
xDaunt was a personal attack on Biff and unwarranted. Same with Biff to xDaunt. Being called out on your bad faith happens literally every day and every time. You especially. So I'm not sure what you replying to me has anything to do with what I said. And yes, if you want to use a hypothetical as a way to say harmful things, thinking you are fooling someone, then you should be warned.
|
On April 21 2019 01:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2019 01:31 Danglars wrote:On April 20 2019 08:35 JimmiC wrote:On April 20 2019 07:05 Danglars wrote:On April 20 2019 02:33 Mohdoo wrote:On April 20 2019 01:46 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2019 01:30 Sermokala wrote:
Biff shows clearly that he is he problem in the thread and not daunt. Everything he posted above is about antagonizing xdaunt until he gets banned. Everything he posted above is bathed in prejudged malice twords people he disagrees with shows his intent was to get daunt banned by baiting him.
I mean can anyone not see it as a clear flame bait manifesto? Pretty much everything xDaunt was saying was directly refuted by Muellers report, which he was commenting on what out having read it by his own admission. He got called out on that and went on a rant. While I think a temp ban was a bit heavy handed xDaunt should not have making the statements he did without having read the report himself. I am of the belief that TL's standards are higher than: x: (thing refuted by Mueller report) z: FYI that is refuted by the Mueller report. Did you read it? x: It is not refuted by the Mueller report and I have not read it z: But you are making arguments that we have confirmed are false and you would see that if you read the Mueller report x: no i'm not, y'all are wrong and this is the problem with the left, y'all. where do you go from there? It's just trash. It has no place on TL. I thought he had a point at what was missing from the report, and debating on the conclusions. Several posters could not accept the simple argument and went around denying it or moving to other points. I thought all of it was in keeping with a debate thread. He just should've given up after a couple posts made on the same line. But you're eliding the real point. Is it ever ok to openly wonder why Mohdoo even posts? Can I call you TeamLiquid's version of Jussie Smollett or Stacey Abrams, if I do think you're really beyond the pale of lying or not accepting reality? Is that really conducive to debate? Does it matter if I'm right that you're posting like you were them, or have been bullshitting this whole time? On April 19 2019 11:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Your bad faith is absolutely staggering. I don’t even know why you come here to discuss anymore; at that point you sound like a special Teamliquid version of Sarah Sanders. That's why I questioned if both posters deserved bans or warns. xDaunt's ban was for getting "too heated up." Maybe Biff's would be a personal attack and insult. You can call out bullshit without making a shitpost, and that's exactly what Biff did, and what people that like Biff's politics defend. On April 20 2019 01:30 Sermokala wrote:
Biff shows clearly that he is he problem in the thread and not daunt. Everything he posted above is about antagonizing xdaunt until he gets banned. Everything he posted above is bathed in prejudged malice twords people he disagrees with shows his intent was to get daunt banned by baiting him.
I mean can anyone not see it as a clear flame bait manifesto? On April 20 2019 01:27 Sent. wrote:It’s tiring, it’s sterile, it’s boring and it’s simply shit. And no one is interested in that crap. If it's so uninteresting why can't you (and all the other posters claiming xDaunt and Danglars come with nothing but bad intentions) just stop replying to their posts instead of complaining about the thread being full of xDaunt arguing with posters like you? If you can't find a nice way to say you think the posts are bullshit, how about ignoring the offending post. You're just making the thread shitty and blaming everybody but yourself. I'm really hoping for some mod feedback in this thread, because it's clear that people forgive members of their tribe the same behavior they find offensive in members of the opposing tribe. You can get off the soap box man. I mean your post to complain about bill was pure passive aggressive, and then even now while you're pretending to be all responsible and even handed you throw out some more passive aggressive digs. You are not a good advocate for anyone because of your long history of being a jerk. You're again much mistaken. I said I'd have to wait before rendering judgement precisely because moderators discuss things behind the scenes and some time elapses before they decide whether Biff's behavior was also actionable. You can compare reserving judgement to what passive aggression is when you look at what Seeker called "passive/aggressively hint that some users need to be actioned" in your post here and evilfatsh1t's post here. On April 20 2019 09:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
From what I can see, is that when people are called out, they dig in and get combative. Then when continued to be made aware that they are wrong, they refuse to accept it. Then we come here and take further digs at the poster in question.
Daunt was called out, by me and m4ini, about his drawing conclusions on a report he had not read and would not accept that. Then Igne comes in and tries to massage the word exonerate as to mean what Daunt wanted it to me. GH follows by accepting Igne's comments and speaks for him, while everyone else has seemingly moved onto something different. Daunt gets banned for harmful language (Danglars should also be warned for his post above, because he essentially did the same thing). I defended Daunt's emotionally outburst.
To sum it all up, posters who can't stand to be called out on bullshit, complain they are being targeted. When in reality, most posters just want to correct their wrong statements and to get a real, definitive answer to questions that give us more of an idea of what they are really trying to speak to. If we ask for clarification, we mean just that because something has been lost. But some people can't accept they were lied to, misinformed, or just plain wrong.
Did I miss anything? You might as well say xDaunt called out Biff's "addict[ion] to Trump impeachment fantasy porn", just as Biff called out xDaunt's "bad faith" and "TeamLiquid version of Sarah Sanders." Also, it's comical that you also think I should be warned for harmful language. On April 20 2019 15:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well the problem is very simple: the report could be as damning as humanly possible, a few conservative here would keep saying “witch hunt” and “nothingburger”, and I suspect that if the report did exonerate Trump, a few of us liberals would keep saying that he is clearly guilty.
When Barr made his statement we got an avalanche of obnoxious and smug triomphant posts by Danglar and Daunt talking about how stupid we were and who should go to jail among those people who were so, so, so unfair to Donald.
When it appeared that, well, Barr totally misrepresented the report because of course he did, and that actually it’s pretty horrifying, Daunt just started to fight in an emotional and incoherent way instead of backing up.
Maybe if in your universe, this report could never be bad, or never be good for Trump because you too biased to accept that the guy is indeed a criminal, or indeed innocent, then you shouldn’t post here. Period. Yes, and if you think you're just attacking Barr because he said the truth about the report, of course you're going to say you just don't like Barr for not complying in acting to remove a president you dislike. That's how differing views on the same thing work. I'm capable of examining the issues and calling out bias in others, as much as you wish that right was reserved to yourself. If you would practice as you preached here, you'd not resort to insults and actually act like you had arguments and not just accusations of bias. xDaunt was a personal attack on Biff and unwarranted. Same with Biff to xDaunt. Being called out on your bad faith happens literally every day and every time. You especially. So I'm not sure what you replying to me has anything to do with what I said. And yes, if you want to use a hypothetical as a way to say harmful things, thinking you are fooling someone, then you should be warned.
Whether something is a "personal attack" or merely "being called out" is a subjective judgement. I think both people personally attacked the other. You should think the same if I were to question why you even post here, or you're just TeamLiquid's version of Jussie Smollett.
|
I'll say my last piece on the matter and drop it, because it isn't getting anyone anywhere.
A personal attack and being called out are two different things. You can call me out for not having all the facts or a complete understanding of the topic being discussed. That's fine. You can call me out for bad faith arguing or shitposting. That's fine. But when you're denigrating someone with snide name-calling/associations, then that is a personal attack.
Hopefully I cleared that up. Good day.
|
On April 21 2019 03:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I'll say my last piece on the matter and drop it, because it isn't getting anyone anywhere.
A personal attack and being called out are two different things. You can call me out for not having all the facts or a complete understanding of the topic being discussed. That's fine. You can call me out for bad faith arguing or shitposting. That's fine. But when you're denigrating someone with snide name-calling/associations, then that is a personal attack.
Hopefully I cleared that up. Good day.
I would've appreciated a response on whether this post could be simply calling you out for something, or if it's a personal attack, but I respect that you're done with this topic. I absolutely thought Biff crossed a line into denigrating and name-calling. You never gave your verdict, so I simply don't know. I obviously have been posting about some users that will dismiss personal attacks as simple call-outs, but won't come to terms with the method of calling out being clearly derogatory comments about the person. I don't really think there is a line on language in their mind when the target is defending Trump and the target is accused of spinning or dodging. Otherwise I would've gotten a response on the language Biff used, and whether I can use it against them if I come to similar conclusions.
|
|
|
On April 21 2019 04:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2019 03:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I'll say my last piece on the matter and drop it, because it isn't getting anyone anywhere.
A personal attack and being called out are two different things. You can call me out for not having all the facts or a complete understanding of the topic being discussed. That's fine. You can call me out for bad faith arguing or shitposting. That's fine. But when you're denigrating someone with snide name-calling/associations, then that is a personal attack.
Hopefully I cleared that up. Good day. I would've appreciated a response on whether this post could be simply calling you out for something, or if it's a personal attack, but I respect that you're done with this topic. I absolutely thought Biff crossed a line into denigrating and name-calling. You never gave your verdict, so I simply don't know. I obviously have been posting about some users that will dismiss personal attacks as simple call-outs, but won't come to terms with the method of calling out being clearly derogatory comments about the person. I don't really think there is a line on language in their mind when the target is defending Trump and the target is accused of spinning or dodging. Otherwise I would've gotten a response on the language Biff used, and whether I can use it against them if I come to similar conclusions.
Look at the quote in your second to last post. What was the very first sentence I wrote?
|
On April 21 2019 04:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2019 04:10 Danglars wrote:On April 21 2019 03:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I'll say my last piece on the matter and drop it, because it isn't getting anyone anywhere.
A personal attack and being called out are two different things. You can call me out for not having all the facts or a complete understanding of the topic being discussed. That's fine. You can call me out for bad faith arguing or shitposting. That's fine. But when you're denigrating someone with snide name-calling/associations, then that is a personal attack.
Hopefully I cleared that up. Good day. I would've appreciated a response on whether this post could be simply calling you out for something, or if it's a personal attack, but I respect that you're done with this topic. I absolutely thought Biff crossed a line into denigrating and name-calling. You never gave your verdict, so I simply don't know. I obviously have been posting about some users that will dismiss personal attacks as simple call-outs, but won't come to terms with the method of calling out being clearly derogatory comments about the person. I don't really think there is a line on language in their mind when the target is defending Trump and the target is accused of spinning or dodging. Otherwise I would've gotten a response on the language Biff used, and whether I can use it against them if I come to similar conclusions. Look at the quote in your second to last post. What was the very first sentence I wrote?
Brother, you gave your last comment and I gave my last one. I consider our interaction finished.
|
Oh, believe it is. Just don't say I didn't give a verdict when it was literally the first thing I led with. You got your answer.
|
On April 21 2019 01:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2019 01:31 Danglars wrote:On April 20 2019 08:35 JimmiC wrote:On April 20 2019 07:05 Danglars wrote:On April 20 2019 02:33 Mohdoo wrote:On April 20 2019 01:46 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2019 01:30 Sermokala wrote:
Biff shows clearly that he is he problem in the thread and not daunt. Everything he posted above is about antagonizing xdaunt until he gets banned. Everything he posted above is bathed in prejudged malice twords people he disagrees with shows his intent was to get daunt banned by baiting him.
I mean can anyone not see it as a clear flame bait manifesto? Pretty much everything xDaunt was saying was directly refuted by Muellers report, which he was commenting on what out having read it by his own admission. He got called out on that and went on a rant. While I think a temp ban was a bit heavy handed xDaunt should not have making the statements he did without having read the report himself. I am of the belief that TL's standards are higher than: x: (thing refuted by Mueller report) z: FYI that is refuted by the Mueller report. Did you read it? x: It is not refuted by the Mueller report and I have not read it z: But you are making arguments that we have confirmed are false and you would see that if you read the Mueller report x: no i'm not, y'all are wrong and this is the problem with the left, y'all. where do you go from there? It's just trash. It has no place on TL. I thought he had a point at what was missing from the report, and debating on the conclusions. Several posters could not accept the simple argument and went around denying it or moving to other points. I thought all of it was in keeping with a debate thread. He just should've given up after a couple posts made on the same line. But you're eliding the real point. Is it ever ok to openly wonder why Mohdoo even posts? Can I call you TeamLiquid's version of Jussie Smollett or Stacey Abrams, if I do think you're really beyond the pale of lying or not accepting reality? Is that really conducive to debate? Does it matter if I'm right that you're posting like you were them, or have been bullshitting this whole time? On April 19 2019 11:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Your bad faith is absolutely staggering. I don’t even know why you come here to discuss anymore; at that point you sound like a special Teamliquid version of Sarah Sanders. That's why I questioned if both posters deserved bans or warns. xDaunt's ban was for getting "too heated up." Maybe Biff's would be a personal attack and insult. You can call out bullshit without making a shitpost, and that's exactly what Biff did, and what people that like Biff's politics defend. On April 20 2019 01:30 Sermokala wrote:
Biff shows clearly that he is he problem in the thread and not daunt. Everything he posted above is about antagonizing xdaunt until he gets banned. Everything he posted above is bathed in prejudged malice twords people he disagrees with shows his intent was to get daunt banned by baiting him.
I mean can anyone not see it as a clear flame bait manifesto? On April 20 2019 01:27 Sent. wrote:It’s tiring, it’s sterile, it’s boring and it’s simply shit. And no one is interested in that crap. If it's so uninteresting why can't you (and all the other posters claiming xDaunt and Danglars come with nothing but bad intentions) just stop replying to their posts instead of complaining about the thread being full of xDaunt arguing with posters like you? If you can't find a nice way to say you think the posts are bullshit, how about ignoring the offending post. You're just making the thread shitty and blaming everybody but yourself. I'm really hoping for some mod feedback in this thread, because it's clear that people forgive members of their tribe the same behavior they find offensive in members of the opposing tribe. You can get off the soap box man. I mean your post to complain about bill was pure passive aggressive, and then even now while you're pretending to be all responsible and even handed you throw out some more passive aggressive digs. You are not a good advocate for anyone because of your long history of being a jerk. You're again much mistaken. I said I'd have to wait before rendering judgement precisely because moderators discuss things behind the scenes and some time elapses before they decide whether Biff's behavior was also actionable. You can compare reserving judgement to what passive aggression is when you look at what Seeker called "passive/aggressively hint that some users need to be actioned" in your post here and evilfatsh1t's post here. On April 20 2019 09:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
From what I can see, is that when people are called out, they dig in and get combative. Then when continued to be made aware that they are wrong, they refuse to accept it. Then we come here and take further digs at the poster in question.
Daunt was called out, by me and m4ini, about his drawing conclusions on a report he had not read and would not accept that. Then Igne comes in and tries to massage the word exonerate as to mean what Daunt wanted it to me. GH follows by accepting Igne's comments and speaks for him, while everyone else has seemingly moved onto something different. Daunt gets banned for harmful language (Danglars should also be warned for his post above, because he essentially did the same thing). I defended Daunt's emotionally outburst.
To sum it all up, posters who can't stand to be called out on bullshit, complain they are being targeted. When in reality, most posters just want to correct their wrong statements and to get a real, definitive answer to questions that give us more of an idea of what they are really trying to speak to. If we ask for clarification, we mean just that because something has been lost. But some people can't accept they were lied to, misinformed, or just plain wrong.
Did I miss anything? You might as well say xDaunt called out Biff's "addict[ion] to Trump impeachment fantasy porn", just as Biff called out xDaunt's "bad faith" and "TeamLiquid version of Sarah Sanders." Also, it's comical that you also think I should be warned for harmful language. On April 20 2019 15:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well the problem is very simple: the report could be as damning as humanly possible, a few conservative here would keep saying “witch hunt” and “nothingburger”, and I suspect that if the report did exonerate Trump, a few of us liberals would keep saying that he is clearly guilty.
When Barr made his statement we got an avalanche of obnoxious and smug triomphant posts by Danglar and Daunt talking about how stupid we were and who should go to jail among those people who were so, so, so unfair to Donald.
When it appeared that, well, Barr totally misrepresented the report because of course he did, and that actually it’s pretty horrifying, Daunt just started to fight in an emotional and incoherent way instead of backing up.
Maybe if in your universe, this report could never be bad, or never be good for Trump because you too biased to accept that the guy is indeed a criminal, or indeed innocent, then you shouldn’t post here. Period. Yes, and if you think you're just attacking Barr because he said the truth about the report, of course you're going to say you just don't like Barr for not complying in acting to remove a president you dislike. That's how differing views on the same thing work. I'm capable of examining the issues and calling out bias in others, as much as you wish that right was reserved to yourself. If you would practice as you preached here, you'd not resort to insults and actually act like you had arguments and not just accusations of bias. xDaunt was a personal attack on Biff and unwarranted. Same with Biff to xDaunt. Being called out on your bad faith happens literally every day and every time. You especially. So I'm not sure what you replying to me has anything to do with what I said. And yes, if you want to use a hypothetical as a way to say harmful things, thinking you are fooling someone, then you should be warned.
You guys are a bit sensitive. I called xDaunt our Sarah Sanders because he was speaking like a spokeperson whose job is to justify their employer no matter how bad the situation and with unlimited supply of bad faith if necessary.
My point is that we are no lawyers and no spokepersons here. If you feel your mission is to say that kofkeke really meant something but we are not gonna tell you what, you ain’t contributing. And xDaunt prestation recently has been very kofkeke like.
Happy we agree that the WH spokeperson Trump chose is so fucking awful everyone agrees it’s the ultimate insult to be compared to her. One more point to Donny
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 21 2019 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2019 01:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 21 2019 01:31 Danglars wrote:On April 20 2019 08:35 JimmiC wrote:On April 20 2019 07:05 Danglars wrote:On April 20 2019 02:33 Mohdoo wrote:On April 20 2019 01:46 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2019 01:30 Sermokala wrote:
Biff shows clearly that he is he problem in the thread and not daunt. Everything he posted above is about antagonizing xdaunt until he gets banned. Everything he posted above is bathed in prejudged malice twords people he disagrees with shows his intent was to get daunt banned by baiting him.
I mean can anyone not see it as a clear flame bait manifesto? Pretty much everything xDaunt was saying was directly refuted by Muellers report, which he was commenting on what out having read it by his own admission. He got called out on that and went on a rant. While I think a temp ban was a bit heavy handed xDaunt should not have making the statements he did without having read the report himself. I am of the belief that TL's standards are higher than: x: (thing refuted by Mueller report) z: FYI that is refuted by the Mueller report. Did you read it? x: It is not refuted by the Mueller report and I have not read it z: But you are making arguments that we have confirmed are false and you would see that if you read the Mueller report x: no i'm not, y'all are wrong and this is the problem with the left, y'all. where do you go from there? It's just trash. It has no place on TL. I thought he had a point at what was missing from the report, and debating on the conclusions. Several posters could not accept the simple argument and went around denying it or moving to other points. I thought all of it was in keeping with a debate thread. He just should've given up after a couple posts made on the same line. But you're eliding the real point. Is it ever ok to openly wonder why Mohdoo even posts? Can I call you TeamLiquid's version of Jussie Smollett or Stacey Abrams, if I do think you're really beyond the pale of lying or not accepting reality? Is that really conducive to debate? Does it matter if I'm right that you're posting like you were them, or have been bullshitting this whole time? On April 19 2019 11:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Your bad faith is absolutely staggering. I don’t even know why you come here to discuss anymore; at that point you sound like a special Teamliquid version of Sarah Sanders. That's why I questioned if both posters deserved bans or warns. xDaunt's ban was for getting "too heated up." Maybe Biff's would be a personal attack and insult. You can call out bullshit without making a shitpost, and that's exactly what Biff did, and what people that like Biff's politics defend. On April 20 2019 01:30 Sermokala wrote:
Biff shows clearly that he is he problem in the thread and not daunt. Everything he posted above is about antagonizing xdaunt until he gets banned. Everything he posted above is bathed in prejudged malice twords people he disagrees with shows his intent was to get daunt banned by baiting him.
I mean can anyone not see it as a clear flame bait manifesto? On April 20 2019 01:27 Sent. wrote:It’s tiring, it’s sterile, it’s boring and it’s simply shit. And no one is interested in that crap. If it's so uninteresting why can't you (and all the other posters claiming xDaunt and Danglars come with nothing but bad intentions) just stop replying to their posts instead of complaining about the thread being full of xDaunt arguing with posters like you? If you can't find a nice way to say you think the posts are bullshit, how about ignoring the offending post. You're just making the thread shitty and blaming everybody but yourself. I'm really hoping for some mod feedback in this thread, because it's clear that people forgive members of their tribe the same behavior they find offensive in members of the opposing tribe. You can get off the soap box man. I mean your post to complain about bill was pure passive aggressive, and then even now while you're pretending to be all responsible and even handed you throw out some more passive aggressive digs. You are not a good advocate for anyone because of your long history of being a jerk. You're again much mistaken. I said I'd have to wait before rendering judgement precisely because moderators discuss things behind the scenes and some time elapses before they decide whether Biff's behavior was also actionable. You can compare reserving judgement to what passive aggression is when you look at what Seeker called "passive/aggressively hint that some users need to be actioned" in your post here and evilfatsh1t's post here. On April 20 2019 09:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
From what I can see, is that when people are called out, they dig in and get combative. Then when continued to be made aware that they are wrong, they refuse to accept it. Then we come here and take further digs at the poster in question.
Daunt was called out, by me and m4ini, about his drawing conclusions on a report he had not read and would not accept that. Then Igne comes in and tries to massage the word exonerate as to mean what Daunt wanted it to me. GH follows by accepting Igne's comments and speaks for him, while everyone else has seemingly moved onto something different. Daunt gets banned for harmful language (Danglars should also be warned for his post above, because he essentially did the same thing). I defended Daunt's emotionally outburst.
To sum it all up, posters who can't stand to be called out on bullshit, complain they are being targeted. When in reality, most posters just want to correct their wrong statements and to get a real, definitive answer to questions that give us more of an idea of what they are really trying to speak to. If we ask for clarification, we mean just that because something has been lost. But some people can't accept they were lied to, misinformed, or just plain wrong.
Did I miss anything? You might as well say xDaunt called out Biff's "addict[ion] to Trump impeachment fantasy porn", just as Biff called out xDaunt's "bad faith" and "TeamLiquid version of Sarah Sanders." Also, it's comical that you also think I should be warned for harmful language. On April 20 2019 15:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well the problem is very simple: the report could be as damning as humanly possible, a few conservative here would keep saying “witch hunt” and “nothingburger”, and I suspect that if the report did exonerate Trump, a few of us liberals would keep saying that he is clearly guilty.
When Barr made his statement we got an avalanche of obnoxious and smug triomphant posts by Danglar and Daunt talking about how stupid we were and who should go to jail among those people who were so, so, so unfair to Donald.
When it appeared that, well, Barr totally misrepresented the report because of course he did, and that actually it’s pretty horrifying, Daunt just started to fight in an emotional and incoherent way instead of backing up.
Maybe if in your universe, this report could never be bad, or never be good for Trump because you too biased to accept that the guy is indeed a criminal, or indeed innocent, then you shouldn’t post here. Period. Yes, and if you think you're just attacking Barr because he said the truth about the report, of course you're going to say you just don't like Barr for not complying in acting to remove a president you dislike. That's how differing views on the same thing work. I'm capable of examining the issues and calling out bias in others, as much as you wish that right was reserved to yourself. If you would practice as you preached here, you'd not resort to insults and actually act like you had arguments and not just accusations of bias. xDaunt was a personal attack on Biff and unwarranted. Same with Biff to xDaunt. Being called out on your bad faith happens literally every day and every time. You especially. So I'm not sure what you replying to me has anything to do with what I said. And yes, if you want to use a hypothetical as a way to say harmful things, thinking you are fooling someone, then you should be warned. You guys are a bit sensitive. I called xDaunt our Sarah Sanders because he was speaking like a spokeperson whose job is to justify their employer no matter how bad the situation and with unlimited supply of bad faith if necessary. My point is that we are no lawyers and no spokepersons here. If you feel your mission is to say that kofkeke really meant something but we are not gonna tell you what, you ain’t contributing. And xDaunt prestation recently has been very kofkeke like. Happy we agree that the WH spokeperson Trump chose is so fucking awful everyone agrees it’s the ultimate insult to be compared to her. One more point to Donny
I can definitely get on board with the idea that everyone should collectively be a little less sensitive and accept the occasional jab here and there without losing their shit over it. Might even be the right answer to this recurring problem. But it’s clear that what’s wanted is just a way to frame one side of the argument as actionable “bad faith” discussion with the other side’s shittiness being fully justifiable because of how bad the people they’re talking to are. That’s not a consistent way to do this, it’s just political editorializing.
|
If it is consistent posters doing this, then that is what it is. I literally rebuked GH the other day in no way was polite. If the situation calls for it, then that's what I'll do. We get derailed in our discussions because some posters come in with nothing of value to add or take the discussion off on a tangent.
If we consistently allow them to do that and don't call them on it, then what's the point of anyone discussing anything? Holding each other accountable should be fair game, even if words are harsh.
|
On April 21 2019 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2019 01:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 21 2019 01:31 Danglars wrote:On April 20 2019 08:35 JimmiC wrote:On April 20 2019 07:05 Danglars wrote:On April 20 2019 02:33 Mohdoo wrote:On April 20 2019 01:46 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2019 01:30 Sermokala wrote:
Biff shows clearly that he is he problem in the thread and not daunt. Everything he posted above is about antagonizing xdaunt until he gets banned. Everything he posted above is bathed in prejudged malice twords people he disagrees with shows his intent was to get daunt banned by baiting him.
I mean can anyone not see it as a clear flame bait manifesto? Pretty much everything xDaunt was saying was directly refuted by Muellers report, which he was commenting on what out having read it by his own admission. He got called out on that and went on a rant. While I think a temp ban was a bit heavy handed xDaunt should not have making the statements he did without having read the report himself. I am of the belief that TL's standards are higher than: x: (thing refuted by Mueller report) z: FYI that is refuted by the Mueller report. Did you read it? x: It is not refuted by the Mueller report and I have not read it z: But you are making arguments that we have confirmed are false and you would see that if you read the Mueller report x: no i'm not, y'all are wrong and this is the problem with the left, y'all. where do you go from there? It's just trash. It has no place on TL. I thought he had a point at what was missing from the report, and debating on the conclusions. Several posters could not accept the simple argument and went around denying it or moving to other points. I thought all of it was in keeping with a debate thread. He just should've given up after a couple posts made on the same line. But you're eliding the real point. Is it ever ok to openly wonder why Mohdoo even posts? Can I call you TeamLiquid's version of Jussie Smollett or Stacey Abrams, if I do think you're really beyond the pale of lying or not accepting reality? Is that really conducive to debate? Does it matter if I'm right that you're posting like you were them, or have been bullshitting this whole time? On April 19 2019 11:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Your bad faith is absolutely staggering. I don’t even know why you come here to discuss anymore; at that point you sound like a special Teamliquid version of Sarah Sanders. That's why I questioned if both posters deserved bans or warns. xDaunt's ban was for getting "too heated up." Maybe Biff's would be a personal attack and insult. You can call out bullshit without making a shitpost, and that's exactly what Biff did, and what people that like Biff's politics defend. On April 20 2019 01:30 Sermokala wrote:
Biff shows clearly that he is he problem in the thread and not daunt. Everything he posted above is about antagonizing xdaunt until he gets banned. Everything he posted above is bathed in prejudged malice twords people he disagrees with shows his intent was to get daunt banned by baiting him.
I mean can anyone not see it as a clear flame bait manifesto? On April 20 2019 01:27 Sent. wrote:It’s tiring, it’s sterile, it’s boring and it’s simply shit. And no one is interested in that crap. If it's so uninteresting why can't you (and all the other posters claiming xDaunt and Danglars come with nothing but bad intentions) just stop replying to their posts instead of complaining about the thread being full of xDaunt arguing with posters like you? If you can't find a nice way to say you think the posts are bullshit, how about ignoring the offending post. You're just making the thread shitty and blaming everybody but yourself. I'm really hoping for some mod feedback in this thread, because it's clear that people forgive members of their tribe the same behavior they find offensive in members of the opposing tribe. You can get off the soap box man. I mean your post to complain about bill was pure passive aggressive, and then even now while you're pretending to be all responsible and even handed you throw out some more passive aggressive digs. You are not a good advocate for anyone because of your long history of being a jerk. You're again much mistaken. I said I'd have to wait before rendering judgement precisely because moderators discuss things behind the scenes and some time elapses before they decide whether Biff's behavior was also actionable. You can compare reserving judgement to what passive aggression is when you look at what Seeker called "passive/aggressively hint that some users need to be actioned" in your post here and evilfatsh1t's post here. On April 20 2019 09:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
From what I can see, is that when people are called out, they dig in and get combative. Then when continued to be made aware that they are wrong, they refuse to accept it. Then we come here and take further digs at the poster in question.
Daunt was called out, by me and m4ini, about his drawing conclusions on a report he had not read and would not accept that. Then Igne comes in and tries to massage the word exonerate as to mean what Daunt wanted it to me. GH follows by accepting Igne's comments and speaks for him, while everyone else has seemingly moved onto something different. Daunt gets banned for harmful language (Danglars should also be warned for his post above, because he essentially did the same thing). I defended Daunt's emotionally outburst.
To sum it all up, posters who can't stand to be called out on bullshit, complain they are being targeted. When in reality, most posters just want to correct their wrong statements and to get a real, definitive answer to questions that give us more of an idea of what they are really trying to speak to. If we ask for clarification, we mean just that because something has been lost. But some people can't accept they were lied to, misinformed, or just plain wrong.
Did I miss anything? You might as well say xDaunt called out Biff's "addict[ion] to Trump impeachment fantasy porn", just as Biff called out xDaunt's "bad faith" and "TeamLiquid version of Sarah Sanders." Also, it's comical that you also think I should be warned for harmful language. On April 20 2019 15:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well the problem is very simple: the report could be as damning as humanly possible, a few conservative here would keep saying “witch hunt” and “nothingburger”, and I suspect that if the report did exonerate Trump, a few of us liberals would keep saying that he is clearly guilty.
When Barr made his statement we got an avalanche of obnoxious and smug triomphant posts by Danglar and Daunt talking about how stupid we were and who should go to jail among those people who were so, so, so unfair to Donald.
When it appeared that, well, Barr totally misrepresented the report because of course he did, and that actually it’s pretty horrifying, Daunt just started to fight in an emotional and incoherent way instead of backing up.
Maybe if in your universe, this report could never be bad, or never be good for Trump because you too biased to accept that the guy is indeed a criminal, or indeed innocent, then you shouldn’t post here. Period. Yes, and if you think you're just attacking Barr because he said the truth about the report, of course you're going to say you just don't like Barr for not complying in acting to remove a president you dislike. That's how differing views on the same thing work. I'm capable of examining the issues and calling out bias in others, as much as you wish that right was reserved to yourself. If you would practice as you preached here, you'd not resort to insults and actually act like you had arguments and not just accusations of bias. xDaunt was a personal attack on Biff and unwarranted. Same with Biff to xDaunt. Being called out on your bad faith happens literally every day and every time. You especially. So I'm not sure what you replying to me has anything to do with what I said. And yes, if you want to use a hypothetical as a way to say harmful things, thinking you are fooling someone, then you should be warned. You guys are a bit sensitive. I called xDaunt our Sarah Sanders because he was speaking like a spokeperson whose job is to justify their employer no matter how bad the situation and with unlimited supply of bad faith if necessary. My point is that we are no lawyers and no spokepersons here. If you feel your mission is to say that kofkeke really meant something but we are not gonna tell you what, you ain’t contributing. And xDaunt prestation recently has been very kofkeke like. Happy we agree that the WH spokeperson Trump chose is so fucking awful everyone agrees it’s the ultimate insult to be compared to her. One more point to Donny
That arms race does not end. You called xDaunt Sarah Sanders because he was speaking like a spinning PR person paid for that duty? Ok, your inability to come to terms with no collusion and no obstruction of justice is "addition to impeachment fantasy porn." How do you like them apples? Oh, but you see, he's really really guilty of acting like a communications employee, but he has no right to call you really really guilty of acting like an addict hooked on a conspiracy theory! Give me a break.
It's a debate. People are going to disagree with you on the issues and people will disagree with which person is acting in bad faith. Your best move here is to limit yourself with citing the example and explaining why it's bad faith. Hell, even PM other people you think are unnecessarily feeding him and convince them that they should just focus on persuadable people, if this guy really is the worst.
|
On April 20 2019 07:21 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2019 07:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On April 19 2019 03:24 Seeker wrote:On April 19 2019 02:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On April 18 2019 20:25 Seeker wrote:On April 18 2019 18:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Nothingburger Nothingburger Nothingburger
I know TL don't moderate the truth, but surely at some point, it must be against good conversation to insist something repeatedly without evidence, simply writing "I already wrote that" repeatedly instead. Care to elaborate? I thought I was being rather obvious. If it isn't, please refer to previous posts as I have already written that before. I have posted a ton of evidence on this points. I daresay that I have posted far more elaborations. I'm not going to repeat it every 20 pages for the cheap seats. People showed no desire to interact on a factual basis. I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. As it is, unlike others insinuations, I wasn't trying to get xdaunt banned. I was exploring what is or isn't or what should be or should not be permissible in the US pol thread. Is writing "I already wrote that" repeatedly to be considered against good conversation to the extent that it is warnable? For example, you have no idea what I am talking about. Does it sound like I come across as deliberately obtuse? It should do. Those are pretty much word for word direct quotes of recent thread activity. I was trying to be funny, but in this case as a side effect, it comes across as being deliberately obtuse, as opposed to engaging in good engagement. That is exactly the bafflement when engaging with xdaunt and danglars. Is that the kind of activity that should be condoned, or should it be condemned? Kind of pointless to report the posts anyways since xdaunt in the meantime appears capable of getting himself banned without my input anyways. Just for additional context, my original post was posted before the redacted Mueller report was released. I was just tired of reading "nothingburger" by xdaunt over and over again even before it was released and in fustration, I wrote what I wrote. It seemed to work though, since he stopped writing it; at least for the time being. Well, first off, since you didn't provide any context before, there was no way to tell what you were talking about. Secondly, no, that is not an acceptable way of posting. It is basically an excuse to try to get out of providing actual meaningful answers. A response like "I've already explained this before, I'm not going to do it again," doesn't help the discussion progress forward at all. At the very least, if you don't want to type out something that you've already said, then you should provide a link to your previous post so that people can go back and read it.
Like I said, I didn't want to point out specific posts because I wasn't intending to get anyone banned, at least at that point in time. It'll be pretty hard to find the posts now that the US Pol thread has moved several pages ahead now anyways. I just wanted discussion whether that kind of posting should or should not be acceptable. And I am glad and thank you that you think that it is not acceptable.
|
On April 21 2019 06:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2019 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 21 2019 01:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 21 2019 01:31 Danglars wrote:On April 20 2019 08:35 JimmiC wrote:On April 20 2019 07:05 Danglars wrote:On April 20 2019 02:33 Mohdoo wrote:On April 20 2019 01:46 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2019 01:30 Sermokala wrote:
Biff shows clearly that he is he problem in the thread and not daunt. Everything he posted above is about antagonizing xdaunt until he gets banned. Everything he posted above is bathed in prejudged malice twords people he disagrees with shows his intent was to get daunt banned by baiting him.
I mean can anyone not see it as a clear flame bait manifesto? Pretty much everything xDaunt was saying was directly refuted by Muellers report, which he was commenting on what out having read it by his own admission. He got called out on that and went on a rant. While I think a temp ban was a bit heavy handed xDaunt should not have making the statements he did without having read the report himself. I am of the belief that TL's standards are higher than: x: (thing refuted by Mueller report) z: FYI that is refuted by the Mueller report. Did you read it? x: It is not refuted by the Mueller report and I have not read it z: But you are making arguments that we have confirmed are false and you would see that if you read the Mueller report x: no i'm not, y'all are wrong and this is the problem with the left, y'all. where do you go from there? It's just trash. It has no place on TL. I thought he had a point at what was missing from the report, and debating on the conclusions. Several posters could not accept the simple argument and went around denying it or moving to other points. I thought all of it was in keeping with a debate thread. He just should've given up after a couple posts made on the same line. But you're eliding the real point. Is it ever ok to openly wonder why Mohdoo even posts? Can I call you TeamLiquid's version of Jussie Smollett or Stacey Abrams, if I do think you're really beyond the pale of lying or not accepting reality? Is that really conducive to debate? Does it matter if I'm right that you're posting like you were them, or have been bullshitting this whole time? On April 19 2019 11:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Your bad faith is absolutely staggering. I don’t even know why you come here to discuss anymore; at that point you sound like a special Teamliquid version of Sarah Sanders. That's why I questioned if both posters deserved bans or warns. xDaunt's ban was for getting "too heated up." Maybe Biff's would be a personal attack and insult. You can call out bullshit without making a shitpost, and that's exactly what Biff did, and what people that like Biff's politics defend. On April 20 2019 01:30 Sermokala wrote:
Biff shows clearly that he is he problem in the thread and not daunt. Everything he posted above is about antagonizing xdaunt until he gets banned. Everything he posted above is bathed in prejudged malice twords people he disagrees with shows his intent was to get daunt banned by baiting him.
I mean can anyone not see it as a clear flame bait manifesto? On April 20 2019 01:27 Sent. wrote:It’s tiring, it’s sterile, it’s boring and it’s simply shit. And no one is interested in that crap. If it's so uninteresting why can't you (and all the other posters claiming xDaunt and Danglars come with nothing but bad intentions) just stop replying to their posts instead of complaining about the thread being full of xDaunt arguing with posters like you? If you can't find a nice way to say you think the posts are bullshit, how about ignoring the offending post. You're just making the thread shitty and blaming everybody but yourself. I'm really hoping for some mod feedback in this thread, because it's clear that people forgive members of their tribe the same behavior they find offensive in members of the opposing tribe. You can get off the soap box man. I mean your post to complain about bill was pure passive aggressive, and then even now while you're pretending to be all responsible and even handed you throw out some more passive aggressive digs. You are not a good advocate for anyone because of your long history of being a jerk. You're again much mistaken. I said I'd have to wait before rendering judgement precisely because moderators discuss things behind the scenes and some time elapses before they decide whether Biff's behavior was also actionable. You can compare reserving judgement to what passive aggression is when you look at what Seeker called "passive/aggressively hint that some users need to be actioned" in your post here and evilfatsh1t's post here. On April 20 2019 09:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
From what I can see, is that when people are called out, they dig in and get combative. Then when continued to be made aware that they are wrong, they refuse to accept it. Then we come here and take further digs at the poster in question.
Daunt was called out, by me and m4ini, about his drawing conclusions on a report he had not read and would not accept that. Then Igne comes in and tries to massage the word exonerate as to mean what Daunt wanted it to me. GH follows by accepting Igne's comments and speaks for him, while everyone else has seemingly moved onto something different. Daunt gets banned for harmful language (Danglars should also be warned for his post above, because he essentially did the same thing). I defended Daunt's emotionally outburst.
To sum it all up, posters who can't stand to be called out on bullshit, complain they are being targeted. When in reality, most posters just want to correct their wrong statements and to get a real, definitive answer to questions that give us more of an idea of what they are really trying to speak to. If we ask for clarification, we mean just that because something has been lost. But some people can't accept they were lied to, misinformed, or just plain wrong.
Did I miss anything? You might as well say xDaunt called out Biff's "addict[ion] to Trump impeachment fantasy porn", just as Biff called out xDaunt's "bad faith" and "TeamLiquid version of Sarah Sanders." Also, it's comical that you also think I should be warned for harmful language. On April 20 2019 15:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well the problem is very simple: the report could be as damning as humanly possible, a few conservative here would keep saying “witch hunt” and “nothingburger”, and I suspect that if the report did exonerate Trump, a few of us liberals would keep saying that he is clearly guilty.
When Barr made his statement we got an avalanche of obnoxious and smug triomphant posts by Danglar and Daunt talking about how stupid we were and who should go to jail among those people who were so, so, so unfair to Donald.
When it appeared that, well, Barr totally misrepresented the report because of course he did, and that actually it’s pretty horrifying, Daunt just started to fight in an emotional and incoherent way instead of backing up.
Maybe if in your universe, this report could never be bad, or never be good for Trump because you too biased to accept that the guy is indeed a criminal, or indeed innocent, then you shouldn’t post here. Period. Yes, and if you think you're just attacking Barr because he said the truth about the report, of course you're going to say you just don't like Barr for not complying in acting to remove a president you dislike. That's how differing views on the same thing work. I'm capable of examining the issues and calling out bias in others, as much as you wish that right was reserved to yourself. If you would practice as you preached here, you'd not resort to insults and actually act like you had arguments and not just accusations of bias. xDaunt was a personal attack on Biff and unwarranted. Same with Biff to xDaunt. Being called out on your bad faith happens literally every day and every time. You especially. So I'm not sure what you replying to me has anything to do with what I said. And yes, if you want to use a hypothetical as a way to say harmful things, thinking you are fooling someone, then you should be warned. You guys are a bit sensitive. I called xDaunt our Sarah Sanders because he was speaking like a spokeperson whose job is to justify their employer no matter how bad the situation and with unlimited supply of bad faith if necessary. My point is that we are no lawyers and no spokepersons here. If you feel your mission is to say that kofkeke really meant something but we are not gonna tell you what, you ain’t contributing. And xDaunt prestation recently has been very kofkeke like. Happy we agree that the WH spokeperson Trump chose is so fucking awful everyone agrees it’s the ultimate insult to be compared to her. One more point to Donny That arms race does not end. You called xDaunt Sarah Sanders because he was speaking like a spinning PR person paid for that duty? Ok, your inability to come to terms with no collusion and no obstruction of justice is "addition to impeachment fantasy porn." How do you like them apples? Oh, but you see, he's really really guilty of acting like a communications employee, but he has no right to call you really really guilty of acting like an addict hooked on a conspiracy theory! Give me a break. It's a debate. People are going to disagree with you on the issues and people will disagree with which person is acting in bad faith. Your best move here is to limit yourself with citing the example and explaining why it's bad faith. Hell, even PM other people you think are unnecessarily feeding him and convince them that they should just focus on persuadable people, if this guy really is the worst.
I think treating the political thread as a debate is a very bad thing. Debates have different objectives than discussions and conversations. Debates are fundamentally more combative and center around the idea of defending/refuting a certain position. Discussions and conversations are usually understood to be more fluid and open to change. I make it a point to never treat any discussion on TL as a debate.
|
On April 26 2019 00:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2019 06:07 Danglars wrote:On April 21 2019 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 21 2019 01:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 21 2019 01:31 Danglars wrote:On April 20 2019 08:35 JimmiC wrote:On April 20 2019 07:05 Danglars wrote:On April 20 2019 02:33 Mohdoo wrote:On April 20 2019 01:46 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2019 01:30 Sermokala wrote:
Biff shows clearly that he is he problem in the thread and not daunt. Everything he posted above is about antagonizing xdaunt until he gets banned. Everything he posted above is bathed in prejudged malice twords people he disagrees with shows his intent was to get daunt banned by baiting him.
I mean can anyone not see it as a clear flame bait manifesto? Pretty much everything xDaunt was saying was directly refuted by Muellers report, which he was commenting on what out having read it by his own admission. He got called out on that and went on a rant. While I think a temp ban was a bit heavy handed xDaunt should not have making the statements he did without having read the report himself. I am of the belief that TL's standards are higher than: x: (thing refuted by Mueller report) z: FYI that is refuted by the Mueller report. Did you read it? x: It is not refuted by the Mueller report and I have not read it z: But you are making arguments that we have confirmed are false and you would see that if you read the Mueller report x: no i'm not, y'all are wrong and this is the problem with the left, y'all. where do you go from there? It's just trash. It has no place on TL. I thought he had a point at what was missing from the report, and debating on the conclusions. Several posters could not accept the simple argument and went around denying it or moving to other points. I thought all of it was in keeping with a debate thread. He just should've given up after a couple posts made on the same line. But you're eliding the real point. Is it ever ok to openly wonder why Mohdoo even posts? Can I call you TeamLiquid's version of Jussie Smollett or Stacey Abrams, if I do think you're really beyond the pale of lying or not accepting reality? Is that really conducive to debate? Does it matter if I'm right that you're posting like you were them, or have been bullshitting this whole time? On April 19 2019 11:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Your bad faith is absolutely staggering. I don’t even know why you come here to discuss anymore; at that point you sound like a special Teamliquid version of Sarah Sanders. That's why I questioned if both posters deserved bans or warns. xDaunt's ban was for getting "too heated up." Maybe Biff's would be a personal attack and insult. You can call out bullshit without making a shitpost, and that's exactly what Biff did, and what people that like Biff's politics defend. On April 20 2019 01:30 Sermokala wrote:
Biff shows clearly that he is he problem in the thread and not daunt. Everything he posted above is about antagonizing xdaunt until he gets banned. Everything he posted above is bathed in prejudged malice twords people he disagrees with shows his intent was to get daunt banned by baiting him.
I mean can anyone not see it as a clear flame bait manifesto? On April 20 2019 01:27 Sent. wrote:It’s tiring, it’s sterile, it’s boring and it’s simply shit. And no one is interested in that crap. If it's so uninteresting why can't you (and all the other posters claiming xDaunt and Danglars come with nothing but bad intentions) just stop replying to their posts instead of complaining about the thread being full of xDaunt arguing with posters like you? If you can't find a nice way to say you think the posts are bullshit, how about ignoring the offending post. You're just making the thread shitty and blaming everybody but yourself. I'm really hoping for some mod feedback in this thread, because it's clear that people forgive members of their tribe the same behavior they find offensive in members of the opposing tribe. You can get off the soap box man. I mean your post to complain about bill was pure passive aggressive, and then even now while you're pretending to be all responsible and even handed you throw out some more passive aggressive digs. You are not a good advocate for anyone because of your long history of being a jerk. You're again much mistaken. I said I'd have to wait before rendering judgement precisely because moderators discuss things behind the scenes and some time elapses before they decide whether Biff's behavior was also actionable. You can compare reserving judgement to what passive aggression is when you look at what Seeker called "passive/aggressively hint that some users need to be actioned" in your post here and evilfatsh1t's post here. On April 20 2019 09:05 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
From what I can see, is that when people are called out, they dig in and get combative. Then when continued to be made aware that they are wrong, they refuse to accept it. Then we come here and take further digs at the poster in question.
Daunt was called out, by me and m4ini, about his drawing conclusions on a report he had not read and would not accept that. Then Igne comes in and tries to massage the word exonerate as to mean what Daunt wanted it to me. GH follows by accepting Igne's comments and speaks for him, while everyone else has seemingly moved onto something different. Daunt gets banned for harmful language (Danglars should also be warned for his post above, because he essentially did the same thing). I defended Daunt's emotionally outburst.
To sum it all up, posters who can't stand to be called out on bullshit, complain they are being targeted. When in reality, most posters just want to correct their wrong statements and to get a real, definitive answer to questions that give us more of an idea of what they are really trying to speak to. If we ask for clarification, we mean just that because something has been lost. But some people can't accept they were lied to, misinformed, or just plain wrong.
Did I miss anything? You might as well say xDaunt called out Biff's "addict[ion] to Trump impeachment fantasy porn", just as Biff called out xDaunt's "bad faith" and "TeamLiquid version of Sarah Sanders." Also, it's comical that you also think I should be warned for harmful language. On April 20 2019 15:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well the problem is very simple: the report could be as damning as humanly possible, a few conservative here would keep saying “witch hunt” and “nothingburger”, and I suspect that if the report did exonerate Trump, a few of us liberals would keep saying that he is clearly guilty.
When Barr made his statement we got an avalanche of obnoxious and smug triomphant posts by Danglar and Daunt talking about how stupid we were and who should go to jail among those people who were so, so, so unfair to Donald.
When it appeared that, well, Barr totally misrepresented the report because of course he did, and that actually it’s pretty horrifying, Daunt just started to fight in an emotional and incoherent way instead of backing up.
Maybe if in your universe, this report could never be bad, or never be good for Trump because you too biased to accept that the guy is indeed a criminal, or indeed innocent, then you shouldn’t post here. Period. Yes, and if you think you're just attacking Barr because he said the truth about the report, of course you're going to say you just don't like Barr for not complying in acting to remove a president you dislike. That's how differing views on the same thing work. I'm capable of examining the issues and calling out bias in others, as much as you wish that right was reserved to yourself. If you would practice as you preached here, you'd not resort to insults and actually act like you had arguments and not just accusations of bias. xDaunt was a personal attack on Biff and unwarranted. Same with Biff to xDaunt. Being called out on your bad faith happens literally every day and every time. You especially. So I'm not sure what you replying to me has anything to do with what I said. And yes, if you want to use a hypothetical as a way to say harmful things, thinking you are fooling someone, then you should be warned. You guys are a bit sensitive. I called xDaunt our Sarah Sanders because he was speaking like a spokeperson whose job is to justify their employer no matter how bad the situation and with unlimited supply of bad faith if necessary. My point is that we are no lawyers and no spokepersons here. If you feel your mission is to say that kofkeke really meant something but we are not gonna tell you what, you ain’t contributing. And xDaunt prestation recently has been very kofkeke like. Happy we agree that the WH spokeperson Trump chose is so fucking awful everyone agrees it’s the ultimate insult to be compared to her. One more point to Donny That arms race does not end. You called xDaunt Sarah Sanders because he was speaking like a spinning PR person paid for that duty? Ok, your inability to come to terms with no collusion and no obstruction of justice is "addition to impeachment fantasy porn." How do you like them apples? Oh, but you see, he's really really guilty of acting like a communications employee, but he has no right to call you really really guilty of acting like an addict hooked on a conspiracy theory! Give me a break. It's a debate. People are going to disagree with you on the issues and people will disagree with which person is acting in bad faith. Your best move here is to limit yourself with citing the example and explaining why it's bad faith. Hell, even PM other people you think are unnecessarily feeding him and convince them that they should just focus on persuadable people, if this guy really is the worst. I think treating the political thread as a debate is a very bad thing. Debates have different objectives than discussions and conversations. Debates are fundamentally more combative and center around the idea of defending/refuting a certain position. Discussions and conversations are usually understood to be more fluid and open to change. I make it a point to never treat any discussion on TL as a debate.
The first thing I want to say is that you solely noted what you thought was bad about xDaunts posting. The issue was the “why do you even post here//Sarah Sanders//impeachment fantasy porn” on both sides. As much as I think you want to value a more congenial discussion over, I think your behavior shows you particularly lean towards tribal condemnation when both sides are at fault for violating it. It’s a difference between your professed values and your acted values.
I also think discussion where the world views are so diverse is properly investigated as debate. I want to hear the strongest arguments against what I believe is true about society and government. I want to hear what people think are the best counter arguments to the reasons for my political philosophy. Human nature will dictate some responses which aren’t pleasant discussion. Examples include “Isn’t your position rather heartless?” or “Wouldn’t this end in discrimination or persecution?” The discussion evolving from those kind of objections will always look more like a debate than a discussion. I would posit that they’re important questions politically, but you absolutely must not ask them if you value discussion and avoid debate. Certainly, you must take a second look at your own presumption of how moral failings enter into discussions against the policies you advocate, and whether or not you really want to investigate them. There’s a reason why conversations and discussions evolved the rule to stay away from politics and religion, and I posit that you cannot resist the tide personally or as enforcer of the rule.
|
On April 26 2019 01:09 Danglars wrote: I want to hear the strongest arguments against what I believe is true about society and government. You do? Then I would advice that you simply set out your views, rather than relentlessly attacking others.
On April 26 2019 01:09 Danglars wrote: I want to hear what people think are the best counter arguments to the reasons for my political philosophy. You do? You have a strange way going about it then, since we are drowned out by your attacks on other peoples opinions, that we have to infer yours by omission.
On April 26 2019 01:09 Danglars wrote:Human nature will dictate some responses which aren’t pleasant discussion. Examples include “Isn’t your position rather heartless?” or “Wouldn’t this end in discrimination or persecution?” The discussion evolving from those kind of objections will always look more like a debate than a discussion. I would posit that they’re important questions politically, but you absolutely must not ask them if you value discussion and avoid debate. Ignoring the strawman nature of your argument, what is so unpleasant about those responses? They are completely valid and indeed are the main points of discussion of modern society and government. That you care not about discrimination, or persecution would be irrelevant to what you beleive. Those questions are indeed are at the heart of modern philosphical debate on society and government. If they are unpleasant to you, it is because you don't want to see such counter-arguments, which renders your previous assertations frivolous.
On April 26 2019 01:09 Danglars wrote:Certainly, you must take a second look at your own presumption of how moral failings enter into discussions against the policies you advocate, and whether or not you really want to investigate them. There’s a reason why conversations and discussions evolved the rule to stay away from politics and religion, and I posit that you cannot resist the tide personally or as enforcer of the rule. Lets be serious here Danglars, if you ever entered an serious rules based debate, you'll be chucked out of the room for failure to adhere to the norms of logic and format of the debate.
|
So what's it going to be TL? Are you going to enforce the no-personal attacks rule evenly or are you formally adopting a double standard?
On April 30 2019 08:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2019 06:59 Ayaz2810 wrote:On April 30 2019 06:42 Danglars wrote:On April 30 2019 06:29 Ayaz2810 wrote:Also the argument over late-term abortions is fucking horrendous. If anyone actually thinks that women out there carry a baby for 8 or 9 months and then just decide to abort, you're insane. "Their daughter had moderate to severe Dandy-Walker malformation. But that wasn’t the only diagnosis; Laurel also had a brain condition in which fluid builds up in the ventricles, eventually developing into hydrocephalus and possibly crushing her brain. She had a congenital disorder too, in which there was complete or partial absence of the broad band of nerve fibers joining the two hemispheres of the brain. What this meant was Laurel was expected to never walk, talk, or swallow. That was if she survived birth." https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/18/late-term-abortion-experience-donald-trump The one thing you're missing is why you should make it legal for women to abort their baby up to the moment of birth (and, in these cases, after). I really do think it's horrendous for the window for abortion to exist in the hours after birth, provided some doctor diagnoses fetal abnormalities or anxiety/stress/other mental issues for the woman. Maybe for the sake of the life of the baby, we make it illegal in cases where the baby is successfully delivered alive. You know, not many women would kill their babies a day or a week after birth, but that's still illegal. I'm not even sure what you're asking or trying to get across. Are you asking me why it should be legal for a woman who has discovered her baby has a congenital condition that will result in death shortly after birth or horrible quality of life to terminate that pregnancy? That's a self-answering question bud. As a medical professional, I can tell you that "alive" does not mean much in some of the children/adults I have seen. If you think it's better to put a brain-dead neonate on life support and let it grow to adulthood, if it doesn't die before that, just "because it's alive", that's super fucked up. And what the hell does "...or anxiety/stress/other mental issues for the woman" mean? Are you implying that if a woman is anxious or stressed out that she will allow her baby to perish at a hospital after giving birth? I am sure that has literally never happened. The people who allow nature to do what it does, or who get a 9th month abortion, are doing so under the worst conditions and feel worse than anything you and I can even imagine. Why does the right like to pretend that there are women out there gleefully ripping babies apart? Danglars is asserting that these situations make it legal for a mother to tell a physician to let a perfectly healthy baby that has already been born to die simply because they don't want it. Of course he's completely skated around the obscene hypocrisy in his stance, but Danglars doesn't have a shred of decency at this point so we shouldn't be surprised by that.
How is this post productive? How can Danglars possibly respond to it in a way that is likely to lead to something good happening in the thread? On what basis should this post be allowed if TL is going to aggressively comparable posts from posters on the other side of the political spectrum?
For every "questionable" post that I or any of the right-leaning posters make, the other side makes like 10, and usually our questionable posts come in response to theirs.
From my perspective, I really don't care about the light jabs as long as I am allowed to respond in kind. However, the latest ban I was given for my response to Biff was outright offensive in its failure to understand the context in which my post was made, to the extent that it was even actionable at all. I did ask Seeker about it, and here was his response:
Your temp ban was not because of one specific post. It was just a combination of your general attitude and the way you were responding to people.
Yes, let's ban the guy who actually stuck to the facts and made accurate points, and ignore all of the posters who wrongly (and quite stupidly) accused him of posting him in bad faith. Minimally, Seeker's response demonstrates an utter lack of awareness regarding what's going on in the thread.
And perhaps part of that is my fault and the fault of other posters who fall outside mainstream leftist block in the thread. We don't bitch enough about other posters. I'm more than happy to start naming names to cue the mods in on what they should be looking at.
|
On May 01 2019 03:47 xDaunt wrote:
Yes, let's ban the guy who actually stuck to the facts and made accurate points. Who got banned?
And lets be serious here, Danglars posts will not lead to something good happening in the thread by his sheer insults to our intelligence to begin with. He's basically like that guy who came to the US pol thread to say that immigrants are importing heroin using USPS, but without the positive attributes.
|
XDaunt, did you not read any of my posts in here? I think I summed up your questions in my responses pretty well. What say you?
|
On May 01 2019 08:48 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Thank you sir. I feel like we briefly touched the accelerant thing and have been trying to get GH to explain himself for 3-4 pages. So I just wanted to make sure.
We have not made progress at all.
It's irritating to me that something like 75% of DMCD's posts are belligerent and low content and nobody ever seems to bat an eye
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
