Democratic Candidate 2020

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Thu Mar 05, 2020 8:44 am

lpm wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 4:05 pm
Bernie Sanders. A man whose primary political ambition is to ship Vermont nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic town in Texas.
Bernie Sanders. A man who supported a Sandinista rally where they chanted death to yankees.
Bernie Sanders. A man who writes fiction about a woman enjoying gang rape.
Bewildered wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:43 am
Well hers seem to be straight up lies that she maybe thinks capture an exaggerated version of his flaws, or something.
lpm wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 8:26 am
That you've never heard of those 3 demonstrates how other Democrats have never run personal attacks against Sanders.
...
The fact that an idiot on here didn't even bother to Google the 3 examples I gave and just assumed they were lies shows how ill-prepared non-Republicans are for what's to come. Trump & Co are prepared. Is the intention to pretend the attacks are "straight up lies" even though there's video and written records?
Seeing as I'm apparently the only person with the mental capacity, google, a keyboard, and fingers, here are some links:
Mostly True
Not good
3 men simultaneously
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by lpm » Thu Mar 05, 2020 8:52 am

Yes Bewildered. You are so right. I must be a liar. That approach will win elections.

Bernie wrote that women want to be raped by 3 men.
Liar.
Here's a copy of the article. It's got his name on.
Liar.
Here's a video of Bernie apologising for it.
Liar.
Here's an official statement from his spokesman saying it was bad fiction, a clumsy attempt to discuss patriarchal roles, that it doesn't actually say women want to be raped because it's a complicated intellectual exercise in discussing sexuality in a misogynistic world, but Bernie apologises again.
Liar.

It's depressing someone as stupid as you is on this forum discussing politics - your approach will get Trump re-elected.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:05 am

With my mod hat on, I think it's very not on to call someone a liar in that way. Not least because "you're a liar without links" is just plain and simply not true. All around us are claims like that, everywhere, often (especially) about people we think are good. Very, very rarely on the big wide internet are there any references when those claims are made. Being able and willing to find out what is true with these things without getting into a "well you made the accusation so you have to provide the evidence" cycle of pitifulness is really important. Otherwise, the argument doesn't convince anyone or make for a good conversation.

Nothing that she posted was false. For the love of God it would be just swell if more people could be bothered to open a new tab and type the words "sanders vermont nuclear waste" and click the snopes link that comes up. You don't even have to use quote marks. It's about 33 taps on your phone. Good faith debate, people, please.
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued

User avatar
Grumble
Light of Blast
Posts: 4747
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by Grumble » Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:13 am

A key part of scepticism is being willing to examine your own beliefs. If you don’t like what people say the correct thing to do is not to stick your fingers in your ears and say la la la, it’s to think about why you don’t like what they say. Can you muster a coherent argument as to why what they say doesn’t worry you, assuming it’s true?

I think people should be allowed to make mistakes, but if you’re going to forgive Sanders his missteps you also need to forgive Biden for whatever equivalent things you think he’s done wrong.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three

User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 5180
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by Gfamily » Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:27 am

It has to be said though, that this is meant to be a forum that relies on argument backed up by evidence rather than assertion, and just as it may only take 33 keystrokes to search for links related to assertions made in posts, it only takes 33 keystrokes (or 35 including Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V) to provide a link to the evidence at the outset
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:34 am

But the point wasn't to prove things that Sanders has done. It was a reaction to a casually thrown-around statement about Biden (posted without evidence), and intended to indicate how the Republicans will throw sh.t at him, usually without any references.

And, as I said literally three posts ago,
El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:05 am
Being able and willing to find out what is true with these things without getting into a "well you made the accusation so you have to provide the evidence" cycle of pitifulness is really important. Otherwise, the argument doesn't convince anyone or make for a good conversation.
A conversation going "you need to provide evidence", "no, you need to prove me wrong", "no, you made the assertion, you provide the evidence", "what's the matter, can't use google", "well YOU obviously can't use google", etc. is genuinely one of the most tedious, pathetic forms of "debate" it's possible to imagine. The only way it could be worse would be if some dreary c.nt came along and stuck some puns in the middle of it.
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued

User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 5180
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by Gfamily » Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:41 am

Agreed.
So what's the best way to avoid that sort of debate?

Nullius in verba
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by lpm » Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:52 am

The evidence now obtained from this is what's useful. There's a concern about how ignorant the wider public are about Bernie Sanders's past. I wondered if readers of this forum were unaware of a whole range of sh.t - sh.t the Republican machine is well aware of. This has proved how it's unknown. People here like his policies but know little about his baggage.

The voters in primaries in the US aren't aware of this and aren't being spoon-fed links. The whole dream of Trump is to keep this quiet until Sanders is the nominee in July. Part of the reason why he is so enraged by Bloomberg is that Bloomberg surrogates were starting to push it out into the public arena. Nobody much noticed (partly because it seems so mad, "Sanders thinks not enough orgasms causes cervical cancer") but it was on the way - and still will be if Sanders flips back up in the polls and odds.

On this forum, there have been repeated claims that "The polls show Bernie Sanders has just as much of a lead over Trump as Joe Biden". Which is true. The polls do show Sanders well ahead. But Biden has gone through the Republican attacks twice in 2008 and 2012, and I think his weaknesses are widely known (his vagueness and clumsy talk and old-fashioned views and some seriously outdated stuff from the 1970s (he's been a national politician since the 1924 elections or something)).

If all this stuff had been public in 2016 and was widely known, the apologies done and old history, then I'd feel a lot more comfortable about the "polls show Sanders ahead" argument. Maybe the Republican attacks from July to November, constantly hammering away about this sort of sh.t, will make no difference and that lead will remain. But would you want to count on this?
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by Bird on a Fire » Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:01 am

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:34 am
A conversation going "you need to provide evidence", "no, you need to prove me wrong", "no, you made the assertion, you provide the evidence", "what's the matter, can't use google", "well YOU obviously can't use google", etc. is genuinely one of the most tedious, pathetic forms of "debate" it's possible to imagine. The only way it could be worse would be if some dreary c.nt came along and stuck some puns in the middle of it.
Amen.
Gfamily wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:41 am
Agreed.
So what's the best way to avoid that sort of debate?

Nullius in verba
Somebody - preferably one of the participants - has to act like a grownup and post the evidence. It's not super complicated, but it often seems to fall to EPD to break the stalemate.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by lpm » Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:31 am

The evidence that matters is that nobody seemed aware of the evidence. I have proved my point brilliantly, although much of the credit should go to Secret Squirrel and Bewildered for being open enough to display their ignorance.

Can I ask other questions and hope people will answer honestly?

1) Who here never bothered to read the Mueller Report in full, only looking at a brief summary on the BBC or something, and is unaware of what it said about Russia-Sanders?

2) Who is unaware of the indictments against the IRA (Russia’s Internet Research Agency) who actively supported Bernie Sanders against Clinton in 2016?

3) Who noticed the news a couple of weeks ago from US intelligence officials that Russia was again assisting Sanders in 2020?
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

Bewildered
Fuzzable
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by Bewildered » Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:32 am

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 8:44 am
lpm wrote:
Wed Mar 04, 2020 4:05 pm
Bernie Sanders. A man whose primary political ambition is to ship Vermont nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic town in Texas.
Bernie Sanders. A man who supported a Sandinista rally where they chanted death to yankees.
Bernie Sanders. A man who writes fiction about a woman enjoying gang rape.
Bewildered wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 7:43 am
Well hers seem to be straight up lies that she maybe thinks capture an exaggerated version of his flaws, or something.
lpm wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 8:26 am
That you've never heard of those 3 demonstrates how other Democrats have never run personal attacks against Sanders.
...
The fact that an idiot on here didn't even bother to Google the 3 examples I gave and just assumed they were lies shows how ill-prepared non-Republicans are for what's to come. Trump & Co are prepared. Is the intention to pretend the attacks are "straight up lies" even though there's video and written records?
Seeing as I'm apparently the only person with the mental capacity, google, a keyboard, and fingers, here are some links:
Mostly True
Not good
3 men simultaneously
Lol.

No the precise point is squirrel and lpm should provide links and not make posts designed for propaganda if they want to convince people. You know that lpm just refuses so there is no point asking, but I would have thought my last post made what I was saying very clear since I actually said post links or you are a liar.

Bewildered
Fuzzable
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by Bewildered » Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:39 am

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:05 am
With my mod hat on, I think it's very not on to call someone a liar in that way. Not least because "you're a liar without links" is just plain and simply not true. All around us are claims like that, everywhere, often (especially) about people we think are good. Very, very rarely on the big wide internet are there any references when those claims are made. Being able and willing to find out what is true with these things without getting into a "well you made the accusation so you have to provide the evidence" cycle of pitifulness is really important. Otherwise, the argument doesn't convince anyone or make for a good conversation.

Nothing that she posted was false. For the love of God it would be just swell if more people could be bothered to open a new tab and type the words "sanders vermont nuclear waste" and click the snopes link that comes up. You don't even have to use quote marks. It's about 33 taps on your phone. Good faith debate, people, please.
Again EPD you completely missed the point I was making. I would have hoped that the fact that you can see it doesn’t make sense to say without links it’s not true, and having some experience communicating with me you would not just read that literally and then make two posts raving about it. Honestly I wasn’t actually trying to troll there, and I think if you have some respect for people with different views you would not have assumed I was making such a crazy argument.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by lpm » Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:47 am

Bewildered wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:32 am
No the precise point is squirrel and lpm should provide links and not make posts designed for propaganda if they want to convince people.
Oh great, I said up front that these examples would be attack propaganda, then somehow the words got excluded by people quoting and now you come along to pretend I wasn't presenting it as Trump's future attack propaganda.

What I started with was
Oh, this is a fun game. Let's all play, Putin will thanks us for it.
I described my examples as "all true in a "lot more complicated than that but really happened" kind of a way". You said they "seem to be straight up lies". To determine which of us has been proved right should require ignorant forum members to go off and google for themselves, rather than look at EPD's spoonfed links - because these days everything is so casual nobody believes anything unless they've had to put in a bit of work themselves.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by lpm » Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:54 am

Bewildered wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:32 am
No the precise point is squirrel and lpm should provide links and not make posts designed for propaganda if they want to convince people.
Just to be clear, in case there's anyone else as much of an idiot as Bewildered, which would seem unlikely but you never know given the general stupidity levels around these days, and where there's one fool there's often more - I obviously wasn't wanting to convince people here that Bernie Sanders hates poor Hispanic people, supports people who want to kill Yankees or is a misogynistic rape apologist. He's none of these things. These are all propaganda points that will be used by Putin's puppet in the coming months if he's the candidate.

Like all good propaganda, they have the virtue of being true for a ten-word claim by Trump, and become "more complicated than that" in a lengthy essay giving explanations with long words and boring sophistry.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7527
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by dyqik » Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:56 am

Bewildered wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:39 am
El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:05 am
With my mod hat on, I think it's very not on to call someone a liar in that way. Not least because "you're a liar without links" is just plain and simply not true. All around us are claims like that, everywhere, often (especially) about people we think are good. Very, very rarely on the big wide internet are there any references when those claims are made. Being able and willing to find out what is true with these things without getting into a "well you made the accusation so you have to provide the evidence" cycle of pitifulness is really important. Otherwise, the argument doesn't convince anyone or make for a good conversation.

Nothing that she posted was false. For the love of God it would be just swell if more people could be bothered to open a new tab and type the words "sanders vermont nuclear waste" and click the snopes link that comes up. You don't even have to use quote marks. It's about 33 taps on your phone. Good faith debate, people, please.
Again EPD you completely missed the point I was making. I would have hoped that the fact that you can see it doesn’t make sense to say without links it’s not true, and having some experience communicating with me you would not just read that literally and then make two posts raving about it. Honestly I wasn’t actually trying to troll there, and I think if you have some respect for people with different views you would not have assumed I was making such a crazy argument.
That's not the point you made.

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Thu Mar 05, 2020 12:08 pm

Bewildered wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:39 am
El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:05 am
With my mod hat on, I think it's very not on to call someone a liar in that way. Not least because "you're a liar without links" is just plain and simply not true. All around us are claims like that, everywhere, often (especially) about people we think are good. Very, very rarely on the big wide internet are there any references when those claims are made. Being able and willing to find out what is true with these things without getting into a "well you made the accusation so you have to provide the evidence" cycle of pitifulness is really important. Otherwise, the argument doesn't convince anyone or make for a good conversation.

Nothing that she posted was false. For the love of God it would be just swell if more people could be bothered to open a new tab and type the words "sanders vermont nuclear waste" and click the snopes link that comes up. You don't even have to use quote marks. It's about 33 taps on your phone. Good faith debate, people, please.
Again EPD you completely missed the point I was making. I would have hoped that the fact that you can see it doesn’t make sense to say without links it’s not true, and having some experience communicating with me you would not just read that literally and then make two posts raving about it. Honestly I wasn’t actually trying to troll there, and I think if you have some respect for people with different views you would not have assumed I was making such a crazy argument.
"Obviously I meant something different from what I wrote" is a poor defence. You missed other peoples' pretty transparent points, and are now trying to go on the attack because your obfuscated ones were also missed.

If you write something that's unclear, and pretty much everyone who responds to you misses the point that you were trying to make, that's on you, not them.
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued

User avatar
Stephanie
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2896
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by Stephanie » Thu Mar 05, 2020 12:16 pm

I'm pretty surprised at bewildered tbh, who I'm given to understand dislikes when discussions get escalated, and often tries to defend people making points that may not be particularly clear.

I find the response to lpm quite fascinating at times. Lots of people talk out of their arse and don't post links, but people have a real thing about her not doing it. Lots of people post provocatively, but again, have a real thing about her doing it.

Just something to think about, before this all gets split to the Pit.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

Bewildered
Fuzzable
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by Bewildered » Thu Mar 05, 2020 12:21 pm

lpm wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:47 am
Bewildered wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:32 am
No the precise point is squirrel and lpm should provide links and not make posts designed for propaganda if they want to convince people.
Oh great, I said up front that these examples would be attack propaganda, then somehow the words got excluded by people quoting and now you come along to pretend I wasn't presenting it as Trump's future attack propaganda.

What I started with was
Oh, this is a fun game. Let's all play, Putin will thanks us for it.
I described my examples as "all true in a "lot more complicated than that but really happened" kind of a way". You said they "seem to be straight up lies". To determine which of us has been proved right should require ignorant forum members to go off and google for themselves, rather than look at EPD's spoonfed links - because these days everything is so casual nobody believes anything unless they've had to put in a bit of work themselves.
I know you said that upfront, but that response is for me part of the problem.

What I saw is squirrel making an obvious propaganda post you doing the same thing back 3 times, then an argument over which is true where no links are posted. You are entitled to post how you want, but I am also untitled to see, and point out, the absurdity of it.

I don’t have a strong opinion on whether it should be sanders or Biden, and I haven’t even been following very closely, mostly just following thus thread and reading the bbc. I want whoever has the best chance of beating trump to win. Unfortunately I am feeling pessamistic and doubting either will.

It doesn’t surprise me which people in this thread jumped on me over this though.

And of course I can see the post now telling me I didn’t make the point I made (unclear if they are disputing my intentions or communication but w/e) and yet another post from you still missing the point and throwing personal abuse, which I’m sure you think is fine because I crossed a line by calling you a liar. I don’t care and I’m not bothered by it thoughbut I wish people would get away from the attitude that if someone the forum in crowd generally disagrees with crosses a line then it’s fjne to be rude and hostile.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by lpm » Thu Mar 05, 2020 12:26 pm

I disagree, EPD, mostly. What Bewildered said was useful - it illustrates the problems the world is facing with highly partisan politics and instant reactions and one-word attack lines.

It's like when Trump said one word about Clinton: "emails". Trump was lying. But it was quite a complicated explanation to show he was lying and to discuss actual email security is too boring for an audience. A lengthy explanation of how you don't beat your wife just draws more and more attention to a debate on whether you beat your wife. This age-old problem of negative campaigning is now super-charged thanks to the immediacy and brevity of twitter/facebook.

So simply to say "Liar" like Bewildered did could be the best response. Everyone knows Trump is a liar, even his supporters. To take another example - which I didn't use because it's mostly false - Trump & Co always parrot the line "Sanders went on his honeymoon to the USSR". I think even most people here will have heard it, Trump has been saying it at all his rallies this year, Fox News keep saying it, Rudy & Co keep saying it. What should the response be? Simply say "Liar" and move on? Could that be better than a lengthy response, saying Bernie and Jane went on the trip to the USSR shortly after their wedding but their actual honeymoon was a few months later in St Lucia, and even though Bernie has joked the USSR was a weird honeymoon that was obviously a joke?

We've got this asymmetry going on - Trump (and Johnson) can say lie after lie and get away with it, the media scrutinises everyone else - so why not join them? Brush aside true stuff as lies, put in your own fake stuff.

Bernie Sanders is already trying it - his recent commercial quoting praise from Obama is basically entirely false, editing together old stuff and out of context stuff, yet he's pretty shameless about doing this. And why not?
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

secret squirrel
Snowbonk
Posts: 551
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by secret squirrel » Thu Mar 05, 2020 12:31 pm

lpm wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:31 am
The evidence that matters is that nobody seemed aware of the evidence. I have proved my point brilliantly, although much of the credit should go to Secret Squirrel and Bewildered for being open enough to display their ignorance.

Can I ask other questions and hope people will answer honestly?

1) Who here never bothered to read the Mueller Report in full, only looking at a brief summary on the BBC or something, and is unaware of what it said about Russia-Sanders?

2) Who is unaware of the indictments against the IRA (Russia’s Internet Research Agency) who actively supported Bernie Sanders against Clinton in 2016?

3) Who noticed the news a couple of weeks ago from US intelligence officials that Russia was again assisting Sanders in 2020?
I was aware of the events you were referring to, but as you said yourself, they do not fairly characterize Sanders. I'm also aware of all the things in your 3 points in this post. I admit I've never read the whole Mueller report, but I did read the part that referenced Sanders. It is very short, as far as I could tell. I did a word search for 'Sanders' and looked at what came up.

As for my post about Biden that kicked all this off. I stand by it, though obviously it was not intended to be 100% serious. The long form of the argument is here.

Bewildered
Fuzzable
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by Bewildered » Thu Mar 05, 2020 12:36 pm

Stephanie wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 12:16 pm
I'm pretty surprised at bewildered tbh, who I'm given to understand dislikes when discussions get escalated, and often tries to defend people making points that may not be particularly clear.

I find the response to lpm quite fascinating at times. Lots of people talk out of their arse and don't post links, but people have a real thing about her not doing it. Lots of people post provocatively, but again, have a real thing about her doing it.

Just something to think about, before this all gets split to the Pit.
I was complaining about both her and squirrel doing
It, but I directed the first post at squirrel because she refuses to do it and tends to just mock or wind people up when they do. [edit: and I certainly don’t see her as being bothered or feeling bullied by people complaining about this, I would never make such remarks and will aploguse profusely if that’s the case, but I have quite the opposite impression and thought she viewed it as fun to annoy people that way]. You seem to be saying it is inconsistent because I escalated it, which I did via two very quick posts that I didn’t think much about, but thought I was making an obvious point anyone could see. However others have blown back over more posts now and here I am wasting my time making de-escalating posts rather than just laughing at them.

I am glad you notice that escalation is not my normal thing (thanks), but I wish people here in general could actually be more aware of what how hostile they can be to alternative perspectives.

User avatar
Stephanie
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2896
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by Stephanie » Thu Mar 05, 2020 12:47 pm

Bewildered wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 12:36 pm
Stephanie wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 12:16 pm
I'm pretty surprised at bewildered tbh, who I'm given to understand dislikes when discussions get escalated, and often tries to defend people making points that may not be particularly clear.

I find the response to lpm quite fascinating at times. Lots of people talk out of their arse and don't post links, but people have a real thing about her not doing it. Lots of people post provocatively, but again, have a real thing about her doing it.

Just something to think about, before this all gets split to the Pit.
I was complaining about both her and squirrel doing
It, but I directed the first post at squirrel because she refuses to do it and tends to just mock or wind people up when they do. [edit: and I certainly don’t see her as being bothered or feeling bullied by people complaining about this, I would never make such remarks and will aploguse profusely if that’s the case, but I have quite the opposite impression and thought she viewed it as fun to annoy people that way]. You seem to be saying it is inconsistent because I escalated it, which I did via two very quick posts that I didn’t think much about, but thought I was making an obvious point anyone could see. However others have blown back over more posts now and here I am wasting my time making de-escalating posts rather than just laughing at them.

I am glad you notice that escalation is not my normal thing (thanks), but I wish people here in general could actually be more aware of what how hostile they can be to alternative perspectives.
Bewildered, there was a difference in how you responded to secret squirrel and lpm. You said to secret squirrel that you had no idea whether his post was true or not, because there were no links. But then described lpm's as "straight up lies", and followed up by calling her a liar. Whether or not she is bothered isn't the point, really.

I do understand your frustration in terms of alternative perspectives though.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

Bewildered
Fuzzable
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by Bewildered » Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:07 pm

Stephanie wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 12:47 pm
Bewildered wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 12:36 pm
Stephanie wrote:
Thu Mar 05, 2020 12:16 pm
I'm pretty surprised at bewildered tbh, who I'm given to understand dislikes when discussions get escalated, and often tries to defend people making points that may not be particularly clear.

I find the response to lpm quite fascinating at times. Lots of people talk out of their arse and don't post links, but people have a real thing about her not doing it. Lots of people post provocatively, but again, have a real thing about her doing it.

Just something to think about, before this all gets split to the Pit.
I was complaining about both her and squirrel doing it, but I directed the first post at squirrel because she refuses to do it and tends to just mock or wind people up when they do. [edit: and I certainly don’t see her as being bothered or feeling bullied by people complaining about this, I would never make such remarks and will aploguse profusely if that’s the case, but I have quite the opposite impression and thought she viewed it as fun to annoy people that way]. You seem to be saying it is inconsistent because I escalated it, which I did via two very quick posts that I didn’t think much about, but thought I was making an obvious point anyone could see. However others have blown back over more posts now and here I am wasting my time making de-escalating posts rather than just laughing at them.

I am glad you notice that escalation is not my normal thing (thanks), but I wish people here in general could actually be more aware of what how hostile they can be to alternative perspectives.
Bewildered, there was a difference in how you responded to secret squirrel and lpm. You said to secret squirrel that you had no idea whether his post was true or not, because there were no links. But then described lpm's as "straight up lies", and followed up by calling her a liar. Whether or not she is bothered isn't the point, really.

I do understand your frustration in terms of alternative perspectives though.
Thanks I appreciate it.

Yes I agree there was a big difference, but as I said above the reason is because she deliberately refuses to post links. I don’t think the first post was even hostile to her as a joke, saying they are lies when she had already made it clear she was mimicking squirrels propaganda doesn’t seem harsh to me at all, it’s possible we read this differently. I was just dismissing her comments as crap because I wanted ask squirrel for the link and couldn’t be arsed asking her and getting told where to go. I was putting the dismissiveness in there as a provocation though, as I thought it might have a better chance of getting links and I agree that is escalation at least. I still think my second point is obviously not literal, however it was clearly a snippy one in tone, but did come after she made a fairly insulting and belittling post toward me.

Anyway I just think it’s a common pattern that I as the person the forum in-crowd went for is here explaining what I meant and the right and wrong of my posting in detail while people who called me stupid or made other inflammatory posts just exit patting themselves and think they put down a bully or nasty person. I guess I am essentially repeating myself now
and you already acknowledged it, which again I appreciate.

Edit: sorry broke the quotes, but not seeing the cause.
Last edited by Bird on a Fire on Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fixed quotes - timestamps were formatted as links to phone numbers for some unfathomable reason

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by Bird on a Fire » Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:12 pm

What a f.cking shitshow.

Anyway, the point lpm was making - albeit in a way that apparently confused a few folk - is that Republicans would run dishonest attacks against Sanders, which is obviously true and uncontroversial.

I think we're sort of arriving at a point where it doesn't really matter what the Republicans say, or whether there's any truth to it. Their supporters don't care a jot about veracity and their opponents already know that they are liars but have yet to find a good strategy to counter that. I agree with lpm that the bewilderd approach of a simple message like "liar" might actually be the best option with the electorate.

Obviously there would also be dishonest attack ads on Biden, and in the 8 years since 2012 (when he was only VP, and therefore not subject to anything like the volume of attacks that the presidential candidate would be - I was living in the US at the time and saw a lot of the media coverage) he has become considerably more doddery and confused, there is greater emphasis on his creepiness around young women and he now also has the baggage of Obama's legacy (or lack thereof). I'm not convinced it's a safe bet that the Republican media machine can't come up with equally damaging stuff against Biden.

And yes, there does seem to be decent evidence that Putin would prefer Sanders over Biden, because Sanders is the more divisive candidate (and Putin loves chaos), and because Biden would be good for the US establishment, who are Putin's enemies. To put it another way, Sanders' base and Putin have a common enemy in the US establishment - but I don't think I'd put it like that if I were a Sanders supporter ;)
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Democratic Candidate 2020

Post by lpm » Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:37 pm

The Sanders stuff is just way more wild than the Biden stuff, though. Yes, Biden is a confused old man who will probably die in office, and keeps saying horrible outdated sexist stuff, and his idea of working with Republicans in a bipartisan way really jars these days. But it's not totally mad.

Suppose I was to say "Sanders thinks young children should be naked on a beach and see & touch each other's private parts". Your first reaction would be: what the f.ck? Then (if you're of that disposition): lpm must be a lying liar, surely. And then: I'm not even going to google it to see if it's true, because it can't be. And then: wait, could it be true?

You then google, and find it is indeed true (sort of, he was actually saying something sensible in a clumsy way, it's true in the 10-word tweet and no-so-true and more-complicated-than-that in the essay length explanation). And then you learn it's there ready in Trump's attack propaganda files, a part of a 30-second commercial written in 2016 and ready to run.

Go on, test yourself. I'm not going to feed you links like you're a bewildered child. Go out there and find the maddest sort-of-true Sanders thing.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

Post Reply