You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
For the record, I don't know buzz personally, I don't hate him or anything. My issue is and always has been the attitude in threads. If I'm not responding to a post I'm usually posting positively. Water under the bridge with me. I don't hold grudges.
I feel the same man...I'm going to defend myself and my values ESPECIALLY when I'm belittled or insulted first. Which in most cases, I feel is what's happening. I get insulted then I respond with double the force. But I'm over it by the next day.
Re: US Politics Thread
For the record, I don't know buzz personally, I don't hate him or anything. My issue is and always has been the attitude in threads. If I'm not responding to a post I'm usually posting positively. Water under the bridge with me. I don't hold grudges.
For the record, I didn't report your homophobic comment or whatever you want to call it that makes it somehow okay.
My only issue is mitch constantly claiming people said things they didn't say, then attacking them for what he made up that they said. The one time I took the time to go back and prove to him I didn't say that, his excuse was "well that's how I interpreted it" - that's completely disingenuous and not someone at all interested in meaningful conversation. So I am going to continue to beat him over the head every time he does it because he refuses to stop and others just let him get away with it. Mitch is a troll. There's no other logical explanation for him that isn't far more insulting.
He says the right things but every action says he's full of shit. When mitch was gone, things were fine. A little boring, but fine. Not a coincidence. You HAVE to agree with mitch or you are the enemy. Doesn't matter the subject; doesn't matter how many parts of it you agree with. It's all or nothing. When I take a stand on racisim and in that same post predict that someone is going to say I didn't take a stand, along comes mitch saying exactly that.
I'm a dick to mitch because that's all he deserves. He doesn't like that I don't agree with anything he says and I end up being right so often. I get it...that sucks. Part of why that happens is because I don't just spew stuff. I think it through; I research. Mostly I just think it through and use some common sense. I know a little bit about a lot of things. I get bored too easily to be great at anything. I don't say things if I haven't done at least some homework.
Every once in a while I'm wrong. We'll find out eventually if Sweden is one of those times. I'm not wrong often because I choose to have an opinion on so little. If I have one, I've probably checked it out and not on CNN or Fox News.
Re: US Politics Thread
And interestingly enough, the people that do know me know I am very quiet and reserved. So think about how much bullshit mitch would have had to have done over the years to get a reaction out of me. I'm so even most people check to see if I have a pulse. It's why I'm good at poker. I don't have to act even. I am even. It takes a lot to get me to speak up; it takes more than that for me to be in attack mode on someone.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
For the record, I didn’t report anyone. I reported Mitch once, years ago for the reason everyone knows.
If someone intentionally misconstrues my post, outright lies about what I’ve said, or accuses me of being some kind of “ism” because I don’t kneel to the alter of some wokeness, I’m going to give them the response they want.
Anyone who’s been around here knows I go to great effort to explain why I have the opinion I hold. And if I’m wrong or get an interpretation I find superior to my own, I acknowledge it.
Outrageous and heinous ideas get spread through uninformed people. 9/11 was an inside job, Obama was a Muslim, Kenyan socialist, Trump was pissed on in Moscow, Clinton’s emails were evidence of some mass pedophile financial ring. Take your pick. People are free to believe what they will, and god bless them. But when someone puts forward utter nonsense and demands others see them as an intellectual with an opinion of value, no fucking way. I’ll respond with articles refuting those points, or respond to articles others provided with a thoughtful contribution.
There’s one poster here who causes problems. One. Every single one of us here has lost our cool and been a dick. Some more than others. I certainly have more than once. But when someone calls me a racist by manufacturing what was said, I take that personal. I came from a piece of shit, white trash ignorant back woods part of the country. Before I went to college, I believed (knew) gay people were corrupted by Satan and were going to hell. I believed embarrassing stereotypes. All this was from ignorance and what my community shaped me to be. My journey through my 20s was a constant effort to correct those beliefs and improve my ability to better consider and process information. I’m fucking awesome at it, have the academic credentials, life accomplishments, and professional achievements to prove that. This isn’t arrogance. It’s acknowledging that I’m intelligent and well informed, and capable of admitting when I receive better information. Aristotle famously said “the mark of intelligence is the ability to entertain an idea without accepting it.” That’s what the forum and these discussions represent to me.
All of that is a way for me to say that I feel my effort of thought is apparent in my post, so when someone ignores that effort, and assumes or fabricates a statement or idea they can dismiss as “ist”, I’m going to respond to resolve that inaccuracy. If someone repeatedly does this, I’d be abnormal if I didn’t take it personal.
That one person is incapable of doing anything but misrepresenting and inciting others. I’m fully responsible for my actions, but we all know (those who participate regularly here) the difference between acting in good and bad faith. And it’s very hard to remain civil to someone who is only interested in acting in bad faith to resolve whatever internal flaw compels them to behave that way. It’s not accidental and it’s not unintentional. It’s even harder when that person plays a victim.
I’m not in favor of “no rules”. But I am in favor of discouraging posters who repeatedly misrepresents others, and then make heinous accusations against that other poster.
If someone posted they were happy that a school was shot up, or that a village of civilians was blown up, we’d condemn that right? Like that behavior, if done repeatedly would be at least as bad as repeatedly using a racial slur, correct? If I started posting “Fuck Mexicans!” and celebrated their deaths on the trek here, id be called out right? I’d be banned if I repeatedly said this and stood by it? Then why can the antagonist celebrate the deaths and destruction of COVID-19 with impunity. This poster is telling us we deserve this, and goes around accusing other posters of being horrible humans because they don’t hold whatever unintelligible opinion the poster holds at this second. And you’re curious why this forum is hostile. Read the past 30 pages and tell me in all that dialogue, what stands out. You’ll have your answer.
- IRISH OS1R1S
- Rep: 59
Re: US Politics Thread
I always read and appreciate the effort you put in with your posts Randall. I disagree a lot with what you say, but you do your research which is clear and I'm happy to agree to disagree on things no problem. As you said, when insults are flung then I'll return it.
I really wanted to say something on your comments on racism. Yes I called you a racist I explained why, but let me just put it out there for all.
I called you a racist after you came on posting about how George Floyd shouldn't have resisted. That was the context in which I made the reply. I think we all agree perspective matters. I have and do take back that comment. You admitted yourself after seeing the video how dumb your initial post was. I accepted that and moved on. If I respond to you or anyone with hostility, it is for a particular post. It's forgotten after that which is why you never see me constantly bringing up old shit.
If we can keep personal insults out of the thread I think we all could enjoy these discussions.
Buzz, I think you see things too black and white (on the board) sometimes and if anyone disagrees you see red. You got upset that I disagreed with your opinion on isolation, but you missed that other than that I agreed with what you were saying.
Anyway, reset.
Re: US Politics Thread
I always read and appreciate the effort you put in with your posts Randall. I disagree a lot with what you say, but you do your research which is clear and I'm happy to agree to disagree on things no problem. As you said, when insults are flung then I'll return it.
I really wanted to say something on your comments on racism. Yes I called you a racist I explained why, but let me just put it out there for all.
I called you a racist after you came on posting about how George Floyd shouldn't have resisted. That was the context in which I made the reply. I think we all agree perspective matters. I have and do take back that comment. You admitted yourself after seeing the video how dumb your initial post was. I accepted that and moved on. If I respond to you or anyone with hostility, it is for a particular post. It's forgotten after that which is why you never see me constantly bringing up old shit.If we can keep personal insults out of the thread I think we all could enjoy these discussions.
Buzz, I think you see things too black and white (on the board) sometimes and if anyone disagrees you see red. You got upset that I disagreed with your opinion on isolation, but you missed that other than that I agreed with what you were saying.
Anyway, reset.
Not much to say but +1 to this.
A lot of these threads could do with the temperature being cooled down and folk checking the way they just write in general so that it's less confrontational and hostile. I'll admit as well I am not always perfect.
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:mitchejw wrote:This is absurd RF....and I'm going to post a bunch of stuff and avoid responding to your question and defend my original claim by providing a wall of text?
That's nice, but answer the question. What did the GOP take from the DNC to make the parties flip. You claimed it, now support it.
I don't understand what you mean by "take?" - part of the problem here may be that I don't understand your question. I never used the phrase "flipped" I don't think....but if I did then it I shouldn't have....Flip is not the right word...
Equality under the law is another very vague term. But to me it implies that all the advantages of being here for centuries are totally fair game...and anyone new the to game needs 'get in line.' It's like we're playing a game of monopoly but you get to go around the board 10 times before my first turn.
In general, and correct me if I'm wrong, Republicans prefer as few rules and laws as possible. They view that as "equality" because no one gets an unfair advantage over anyone else....but the means we have to pretend what I said in the previous paragraph doesn't exist.
I will attempt to answer you question about 'taking' but I already admit I'm not certain what you mean by that.
Essentially, I view Southern Democrats in the days of the 1850s as people who were vehemently opposed to change. The were opposed to social changes especially. They did not want the fundamentals of southern life to change at all. They have done their damnedest to keep the old south's ideals alive even to this day. They were extremely conservative and defensive of their way of life. It was the northern Yankee Repubs that were actually in favor of changes in fundamental aspects of society. That to me seems progressive. Politics seems to be the same story over and over again. One party trying to change society, and one party trying to keep it the same. Take the terms Republican and Democrat out of it. In our 2-party system, it's always one party vying for change and one party trying to keep things the same. I do believe though that the system makes it difficult to make large scale changes. I think that's probably a good thing.
Before I go on...I need to know if this is acceptable as an argument for you. I won't waste my time if it's going to be dismissed.
I wanted to show you a more civil time...a time where it wasn't like this between us...it can happen you know...it was this way before Trump.
Quite frankly I made a pretty decent point 3 years ago.
Re: US Politics Thread
Buzz, I think you see things too black and white (on the board) sometimes and if anyone disagrees you see red. You got upset that I disagreed with your opinion on isolation, but you missed that other than that I agreed with what you were saying.
Anyway, reset.
That's kind of funny as I see things more gray than anyone, which is why mitch keeps accusing me of not taking a position on anything. My reviews at work for the past ten years praise my dealing with ambiguity. I see both sides way more than you think...according to some that's a weakness. Interesting feedback though.
