Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 752

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Despite all its problems, one of the good things about social media is interacting with people who have different views . . .

By the way, what happened to this?

It hasn’t changed, but sometimes you have to recognize when you’re arguing with a wall and spare your own sanity.

Since I was not being a wall in those arguments, and everyone in this thread can see that, I’ll just infer that the reason you refuse to address my points is because you can’t address them. You ignored most of my points in my earlier posts before deciding that I was beneath you anyway, so this isn’t exactly surprising to me.

Everyone in the thread can see a great many things, mon ami. At this point a ronto should enter the frame.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Despite all its problems, one of the good things about social media is interacting with people who have different views . . .

By the way, what happened to this?

It hasn’t changed, but sometimes you have to recognize when you’re arguing with a wall and spare your own sanity.

Since I was not being a wall in those arguments, and everyone in this thread can see that, I’ll just infer that the reason you refuse to address my points is because you can’t address them. You ignored most of my points in my earlier posts before deciding that I was beneath you anyway, so this isn’t exactly surprising to me.

Everyone in the thread can see a great many things, mon ami. At this point a ronto should enter the frame.

This makes absolutely no sense.

Fight the real enemy!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Despite all its problems, one of the good things about social media is interacting with people who have different views . . .

By the way, what happened to this?

It hasn’t changed, but sometimes you have to recognize when you’re arguing with a wall and spare your own sanity.

Since I was not being a wall in those arguments, and everyone in this thread can see that, I’ll just infer that the reason you refuse to address my points is because you can’t address them. You ignored most of my points in my earlier posts before deciding that I was beneath you anyway, so this isn’t exactly surprising to me.

Everyone in the thread can see a great many things, mon ami. At this point a ronto should enter the frame.

This makes absolutely no sense.

I suspect it means that you are being a wall, but you don’t see it because you don’t want to. Hence the reference to the ANH:SE ronto that you apparently inserted in front of yourself.

I suspect that’s what it means…

Harmy said:
It’s like it’s quite possible that Picasso would have loved to use Photoshop for some of his paintings if it was available back then, but if you take a picture from Picasso and recreate it in Photoshop, it’s not going to be the same picture and it can hardly be used to demonstrate Picasso’s brush techniques.

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Despite all its problems, one of the good things about social media is interacting with people who have different views . . .

By the way, what happened to this?

It hasn’t changed, but sometimes you have to recognize when you’re arguing with a wall and spare your own sanity.

Since I was not being a wall in those arguments, and everyone in this thread can see that, I’ll just infer that the reason you refuse to address my points is because you can’t address them. You ignored most of my points in my earlier posts before deciding that I was beneath you anyway, so this isn’t exactly surprising to me.

Everyone in the thread can see a great many things, mon ami. At this point a ronto should enter the frame.

This makes absolutely no sense.

I suspect it means that you are being a wall, but you don’t see it because you don’t want to. Hence the reference to the ANH:SE ronto.

Well why not just say that? I wasn’t being a wall, by the way. I admit that most of the time I probably am a wall, but in that conversation I wasn’t being one.

Fight the real enemy!

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Despite all its problems, one of the good things about social media is interacting with people who have different views . . .

By the way, what happened to this?

It hasn’t changed, but sometimes you have to recognize when you’re arguing with a wall and spare your own sanity.

Since I was not being a wall in those arguments, and everyone in this thread can see that, I’ll just infer that the reason you refuse to address my points is because you can’t address them. You ignored most of my points in my earlier posts before deciding that I was beneath you anyway, so this isn’t exactly surprising to me.

Everyone in the thread can see a great many things, mon ami. At this point a ronto should enter the frame.

This makes absolutely no sense.

I think you can understand at least some of it if you tried.

The first sentence suggests each of us can see different things than you in the exchange with Jay.

The ronto crossing the screen in ANH SE right before the conversation with Stormtroopers didn’t make sense either. If there is going to be some continued dialogue on this between you and Jay, that transition might be equally helpful.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

Has trump ever asked you to go to the border?

Author
Time

chyron is right about the ronto metaphor on obfuscation too.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

If there is going to be some continued dialogue on this between you and Jay, that transition might be equally helpful.

There isn’t going to be continued dialogue. He’s said repeatedly that he doesn’t want dialogue with me, and I don’t think he wanted it to begin with given how many of my points he outright ignored. I also don’t believe in conceding points to the other side if I don’t agree with them. A tactic of the right lately is to get the left to agree to disagree even when the left is correct. For example, they’re trying to resurrect the climate change “debate.” There is no debate on man-made climate change. It’s a fact. Conceding points to the opposition is senseless and is actually dishonest when the opposition is factually incorrect. It’s just like with Jordan Peterson. He’s factually incorrect that religiosity prevents immoral behavior. The facts point in the opposite direction because the less religious a society, the less crime there is. To “agree to disagree” with Peterson on that point would mean that you’re just legitimizing a factually wrong position.

Fight the real enemy!

Author
Time

By the way, if anyone is curious about the disgusting cult developing around Jordan Peterson, feel free to skim this video of one of his self-described “devotees” and looks at the comments, where you will find nothing but sickening deification.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQTGc4uaiRM

Fight the real enemy!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

skim this video of one of his self-described “devotees” and looks at the comments

The first rule of Youtube is: never read the comments.

 
Seriously, they’re almost always vile if the Youtuber doesn’t curate them.

Harmy said:
It’s like it’s quite possible that Picasso would have loved to use Photoshop for some of his paintings if it was available back then, but if you take a picture from Picasso and recreate it in Photoshop, it’s not going to be the same picture and it can hardly be used to demonstrate Picasso’s brush techniques.

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Despite all its problems, one of the good things about social media is interacting with people who have different views . . .

By the way, what happened to this?

It hasn’t changed, but sometimes you have to recognize when you’re arguing with a wall and spare your own sanity.

Since I was not being a wall in those arguments, and everyone in this thread can see that, I’ll just infer that the reason you refuse to address my points is because you can’t address them. You ignored most of my points in my earlier posts before deciding that I was beneath you anyway, so this isn’t exactly surprising to me.

Everyone in the thread can see a great many things, mon ami. At this point a ronto should enter the frame.

This makes absolutely no sense.

I suspect it means that you are being a wall, but you don’t see it because you don’t want to. Hence the reference to the ANH:SE ronto.

Well why not just say that?

Have you just met Mrebo? He delights in not just saying things.

Episode I: The Ridiculous Menace / Episode II: Attack Of The Ridiculousness / Episode III: Revenge of the Ridiculousness

Author
Time
 (Edited)

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

skim this video of one of his self-described “devotees” and looks at the comments

The first rule of Youtube is: never read the comments.

 
Seriously, they’re almost always vile if the Youtuber doesn’t curate them.

They aren’t trolls. They’re thousands of comments from Jordan Peterson worshippers talking about how they need to live their lives like Peterson tells them to. Or just listen to the devotee in the video as he rambles about how Peterson could see into his soul and how he hung on every word Peterson said. This is a well-received video with over half a million views and it’s got almost unanimous approval from its viewership. This isn’t a random cherrypicked selection of his cult following.

Fight the real enemy!

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Despite all its problems, one of the good things about social media is interacting with people who have different views . . .

By the way, what happened to this?

It hasn’t changed, but sometimes you have to recognize when you’re arguing with a wall and spare your own sanity.

Since I was not being a wall in those arguments, and everyone in this thread can see that, I’ll just infer that the reason you refuse to address my points is because you can’t address them. You ignored most of my points in my earlier posts before deciding that I was beneath you anyway, so this isn’t exactly surprising to me.

Everyone in the thread can see a great many things, mon ami. At this point a ronto should enter the frame.

This makes absolutely no sense.

I suspect it means that you are being a wall, but you don’t see it because you don’t want to. Hence the reference to the ANH:SE ronto.

Well why not just say that?

Have you just met Mrebo? He delights in not just saying things.

That’s true. Plus I obviously wasn’t being a wall in that conversation, though I think I might just go back to being a wall because no distinction is made between real discourse and being a wall.

Fight the real enemy!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

skim this video of one of his self-described “devotees” and looks at the comments

The first rule of Youtube is: never watch YouTube

FTFY

For me that would be like saying “Never watch NBC broadcasts.” I don’t watch broadcast TV at all anymore, but instead use Youtube, Netflix, and my media server. Cutting out Youtube entirely would be to cut out several “shows” that I watch regularly.

There are more videos on Youtube than just people bitching endlessly about [insert topic].

Harmy said:
It’s like it’s quite possible that Picasso would have loved to use Photoshop for some of his paintings if it was available back then, but if you take a picture from Picasso and recreate it in Photoshop, it’s not going to be the same picture and it can hardly be used to demonstrate Picasso’s brush techniques.

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

If there is going to be some continued dialogue on this between you and Jay, that transition might be equally helpful.

There isn’t going to be continued dialogue. He’s said repeatedly that he doesn’t want dialogue with me, and I don’t think he wanted it to begin with given how many of my points he outright ignored. I also don’t believe in conceding points to the other side if I don’t agree with them. A tactic of the right lately is to get the left to agree to disagree even when the left is correct.

Obviously it doesn’t make sense to concede something you don’t agree with. Agreeing to disagree means you’re just putting a pin in something, and not conceding anything.

For example, they’re trying to resurrect the climate change “debate.” There is no debate on man-made climate change. It’s a fact. Conceding points to the opposition is senseless and is actually dishonest when the opposition is factually incorrect.

Again, it doesn’t make sense to concede something you don’t agree with, but it sounds like you’re totally resistant to debate if you feel certain of something - i.e. debating you would be like talking to a wall.

You should concede points to the opposition when they make sense.

It’s just like with Jordan Peterson. He’s factually incorrect that religiosity prevents immoral behavior. The facts point in the opposite direction because the less religious a society, the less crime there is. To “agree to disagree” with Peterson on that point would mean that you’re just legitimizing a factually wrong position.

You’re confusing facts and arguments.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

skim this video of one of his self-described “devotees” and looks at the comments

The first rule of Youtube is: never watch YouTube

FTFY

For me that would be like saying “Never watch NBC broadcasts.” I don’t watch broadcast TV at all anymore, but instead use Youtube, Netflix, and my media server. Cutting out Youtube entirely would be to cut out several “shows” that I watch regularly.

Presumably you understood my point though.

Episode I: The Ridiculous Menace / Episode II: Attack Of The Ridiculousness / Episode III: Revenge of the Ridiculousness

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

If there is going to be some continued dialogue on this between you and Jay, that transition might be equally helpful.

There isn’t going to be continued dialogue. He’s said repeatedly that he doesn’t want dialogue with me, and I don’t think he wanted it to begin with given how many of my points he outright ignored. I also don’t believe in conceding points to the other side if I don’t agree with them. A tactic of the right lately is to get the left to agree to disagree even when the left is correct.

Obviously it doesn’t make sense to concede something you don’t agree with. Agreeing to disagree means you’re just putting a pin in something, and not conceding anything.

It depends on the subject. I agreed to disagree on Peterson’s justification of sexual harassment, for example.

For example, they’re trying to resurrect the climate change “debate.” There is no debate on man-made climate change. It’s a fact. Conceding points to the opposition is senseless and is actually dishonest when the opposition is factually incorrect.

Again, it doesn’t make sense to concede something you don’t agree with, but it sounds like you’re totally resistant to debate if you feel certain of something - i.e. debating you would be like talking to a wall.

I’m resistant to debating things that aren’t up for debate. Like debating a flat-Earther.

You should concede points to the opposition when they make sense.

Of course, but not when they’re inconsistent with reality.

It’s just like with Jordan Peterson. He’s factually incorrect that religiosity prevents immoral behavior. The facts point in the opposite direction because the less religious a society, the less crime there is. To “agree to disagree” with Peterson on that point would mean that you’re just legitimizing a factually wrong position.

You’re confusing facts and arguments.

Peterson is arguing against facts in that case.

Fight the real enemy!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

skim this video of one of his self-described “devotees” and looks at the comments

The first rule of Youtube is: never watch YouTube

FTFY

For me that would be like saying “Never watch NBC broadcasts.” I don’t watch broadcast TV at all anymore, but instead use Youtube, Netflix, and my media server. Cutting out Youtube entirely would be to cut out several “shows” that I watch regularly.

Presumably you understood my point though.

Yes.

Harmy said:
It’s like it’s quite possible that Picasso would have loved to use Photoshop for some of his paintings if it was available back then, but if you take a picture from Picasso and recreate it in Photoshop, it’s not going to be the same picture and it can hardly be used to demonstrate Picasso’s brush techniques.

Author
Time

Yep. The media was eager to give Trump credit for something and of course it was premature.

Fight the real enemy!

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Despite all its problems, one of the good things about social media is interacting with people who have different views . . .

By the way, what happened to this?

It hasn’t changed, but sometimes you have to recognize when you’re arguing with a wall and spare your own sanity.

Since I was not being a wall in those arguments, and everyone in this thread can see that, I’ll just infer that the reason you refuse to address my points is because you can’t address them. You ignored most of my points in my earlier posts before deciding that I was beneath you anyway, so this isn’t exactly surprising to me.

Everyone in the thread can see a great many things, mon ami. At this point a ronto should enter the frame.

This makes absolutely no sense.

I suspect it means that you are being a wall, but you don’t see it because you don’t want to. Hence the reference to the ANH:SE ronto.

Well why not just say that?

Have you just met Mrebo? He delights in not just saying things.

That’s true. Plus I obviously wasn’t being a wall in that conversation, though I think I might just go back to being a wall because no distinction is made between real discourse and being a wall.

Frink is no less adept at not just saying things, preferring sarcasm and interjections that miss the point.

I don’t like to debate the debate. In the debate itself my posts were all very direct. You making post after post about Jay not engaging with you didn’t merit the same seriousness.

The blue elephant in the room.