US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 241

On July 10 2019 09:38 JimmiC wrote:
Has Introvert been targeted? I think he has only ever been banned like once? Define targeted, if it just means banned than you have too add all the people who have been banned from that group as well to your targeted list?

On July 10 2019 09:42 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I've been temped. And I would say I'm not a combative person except against the forces of stupidity and blatant racism/bigotry. If anyone has examples, I'd be glad to know.

On July 10 2019 23:50 JimmiC wrote:
There is a difference between having a discussion and yelling something from the street corner. Simply writing over and over again the same stuff with no substance is pointless. Others can pull it in a interesting direction and this has happened. But there should be some rule or at least we should hold ourselves to a standard that if we are going to make bold claims that we explain why and not just shout them out. Otherwise it is not a discussion it is being an edgelord and not something we should encourage.

Like I could just as easily start saying "we need a Theological Monarchy to save the planet from destruction" but why will that save the planet " Because he will be ordained by god" but what about all the ones before "no not those the theory of it" How is that different "You go read the 1000's of pages I have and you will understand" so you can't explain it "stop picking on me, I'm just trying to have a discussion of ideas" Ok, well I don't think will work because of X,y, Z "IT will because its ordained by god and we need to have violent revolution because its the only way" But why will it "because its ordained by god what are you not reading?" Then or sometime earlier starts the condescension and insults.

Sure some very interesting discussions could break out about the roll of religion in politics or how much more efficient the centralized decision making would be. Or who knows what, we have a very diverse and interesting group that can have at times some wonderful discussions. None of that however would be do to my street corner yelling and unwillingness to dive into the why's and hows. Even if a bunch of others were willing to do it for me.

On July 10 2019 21:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

This false charge is preposterous. Ive managed to have a good amount of conversations with people in the pol thread with people I disagree with and it never got combative.
To call someone out is bringing attention to the way the conversation is headed and to keep it from getting completely out of hand. When discussing the finer points of border policy and in turn asking that people be treated as humans regardless of legality, only to be hit with a nationalistic tone, didn't get anyone anywhere at the end of the day.

Now because I don't want GH trying to force people into his typical talk of how evil capitalism is beyond what is being discussed, I'm the bad person?

On July 11 2019 02:12 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There is nothing wrong with being combative. I view it as being part and parcel of a debate. If you have views you wish to propagate, people would normally welcome a sounding board to counter and express that view. Perhaps a culture difference?

On July 11 2019 02:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

But one can distract and detract from the conversation being had. Agree? And fyi, I answered his question posed and partook in that discussion. Whatever you're trying to get at because I said, "stop trying to hijack conversations to focus only on what you want to" isn't insulting. It's cutting out the bullshit and getting to the point. Which many people in the thread seem to do. I love KwarK because he doesn't hold back calling stupid, stupid. It is what it is. If you don't like people being told wait there turn or bring more next time, then skip to the next post. But if want me to be the monster in your head, fine. I don't really care.
I will say thank you for being forthcoming with your displeasure of my posts however.

On July 11 2019 02:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There's nothing emotionally lazy about being combative. Take for example, Danglars spending 2 weeks making 20+ posts everyday, across 24 hours about cake and how marriage is a sacred religious ceremony. Say what you will that's not emotionally lazy, that is simply sheer emotional dedication and investment. There was a problem, but it sure wasn't being combative.

On July 11 2019 02:49 IgnE wrote:
the cake discussion is complicated and interesting

On July 11 2019 03:17 brian wrote:


one can distract and detract.. agree? yes. that is exactly the purpose your post served in the thread. well identified. you may note the conversation(s) carried on all the same, though. maybe we can then agree it’s impossible to distract from the thread with a singular post. else, should it continue back and forth with other people, it no longer distracts from the conversation but becomes one unto itself. whether it’s to a particular persons’ liking or not is irrelevant. ‘skip it and wait for your topic of choice to present itself.’

i mean if you are putting the onus of my skipping your post on me, all i can say is perhaps take your own advice. i could easily give you all this same advice in response to your first post.

it’s all bordering on hypocritical. first, trying to direct the conversation while admonishing others for directing the conversation. now, telling me to ignore a post you easily could have avoided had you ignored GH’s post. this is all a little weird. i guess i could’ve kept it all short in that you should heed your own advice, it is good advice.

lastly, i’m not trying to make you a monster or anything else. you came here asking. was i meant to not answer? in any case, no hard feelings here and i’m sorry if you felt even momentarily a monster.