When a person on the right is labeled racist, sexist, homophobic, NAZI, anti-semite and forced to publicly apologize because some group shouted them down, they are never forgiven. In that branded state of illogic forced on them. They see the phony, supposedly right wing people abandon and then pile on them.
With little to lose they start looking around at the people they're grouped with and actually evaluating what those people are saying. What they find is logic. When they stop reacting in an emotional way they hear the message. What the find is that there are even right wing political groups with canard narratives who admit, Yeah, no, that's actually true. We don't believe that full narrative anymore, only part of it and we're the authority of that data. We just can't be allowing it to be stated because of it was still really horrible and it doesn't matter that people are/were falsely imprisoned or maybe even killed for disputing our side. We'll even make it illegal to discuss it.
So our recently unfriended thought-villain can't unsee that. They have to accept wearing the villain hat anyway. [I] What else on this side is a false narrative?[_i]
Now tell me, when are the rolls ever reversed? It's a one way path. More and more people are being put in that unpersoned group.
But those people are where you find real reporting and information. The stuff not allowed by the PC safety patrol. Plenty of those unpersoned people are full of crap on topics or even unlikable, but that trains you to critically evaluate even better. It's ok to ask why a topic is forbidden to think about.
You're giving that other forum member (the one that I just singled out, without using his screen name) some top notch competition in the race for Olympic gold, in the Boredom event.
I went looking for my "file photo" of a man yawning. It's a "gif". I couldn't find it. I'm sure it's there. I often find that when I review the images that I've saved on imgur(.com) it's hard to spot the image that I want to retrieve. Of course, I have quite a number of them.
You're drowning in abstractions; in an empty word salad of your own making.
Did you just describe blackrams (a few messages back) as "left of center"..? Where you said his "point" was "left of center"..?
The only way that blackrams is "left of center" (in a political or cultural context) is if the Multiverse speculations of certain cosmologists are reality, and there's some other universe with some other "blackrams" on some other online messaging board.
You consider yourself on the left. You don't dispute that, correct? A person is left when they hold left positions. But surely you don't actually believe that you are the only true example.of what a left of center person is, right? Because there are other members here who are lefties and are more full of vitriol about their position, to the point that it's likely that they would fraternize with antifa types like those in Portland.
Yes, there are people who apparently want to present themselves as the-voice-of-reason righties while espousing some eye-popping left of center positions. This is common on the right. Mitch, Mitt, John, Lindsey, George, George again, Jeb, Jared and on and on and on (pretty much all the leadership). Media tells people that they're conservatives, and even as long as they have common sense opinions about issues demanding appeasement (leftist, media approved exceptions that everybody must conform to). It's for the children, adderall. Think of the safety of the children.
I see certain forum members with reactionary right-wing expressions and sentiments, imagining that what they're saying is important or insightful.
If only they could awaken from their day dreams.
This ceaseless harping on "the Left", to the exclusion of about any other kind of expression or thought . . . maybe it's destined to be the dominant political and cultural motif of some thoroughly dystopian future, but I doubt I will live long enough to see it. That could be year 2100. I don't think that the legacies of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment are destined for the dustbin of history any sooner than that.
I see certain forum members with reactionary right-wing expressions and sentiments, imagining that what they're saying is important or insightful.
If only they could awaken from their day dreams.
This ceaseless harping on "the Left", to the exclusion of about any other kind of expression or thought . . . maybe it's destined to be the dominant political and cultural motif of some thoroughly dystopian future, but I doubt I will live long enough to see it. That could be year 2100. I don't think that the legacies of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment are destined for the dustbin of history any sooner than that.
Oh, really?! Tell me then, this is a simple question; why are you and so many people on the left afraid to even acknowledge that you are on the left?
The Western world is accelerating well into the left, which perfectly aligns with the decline of our society, culture, morals, lawfulness, respect for other party's opinions/borders, economic strength and interpersonal trust. All are tanking.
Who talks like that? What planet are they on? I've made no secret of my proclivity for establishment, center left and even just unqualified left (MSNBC) media venues, but I also see more centrist and center-right publications like the Washington Examiner and the New York Post. It's not uncommon for me to find my way to "Red State" and small town or smaller city publications. And local news channels, where the Left-Right schism isn't all that evident.
I think I have seldom, if ever seen or heard the phrase (a) "Leftist man."
I'm accustomed to seeing and hearing references to "Leftists" as a group, often in stories about other countries, and sometimes (maybe a bit less frequently) the U.S. I'm used to seeing and hearing about "Leftist" or "Left Wing" politicians and activists. But (a) "Leftist man . . ." That's just bizarre. From someone whose world must be illuminated, for the most part, by fringe-right and reactionary right wing fundraising emails and right wing agitprop.
I scrolled down carefully, knowing it was a "randye" post, peering at the very beginning of it, just to see whether it would be the same old nonsense (it's the same image meme he'd already posted before, if memory serves me) or some new nonsense.
No one should think that I'm adopting the habit of habitually looking at his messages. That only happens on an exceptional basis. Less and less, I think, as time goes by. A numerical function that is asymptotically approaching Zero.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-13-2022).]
Deleted just cause I don't feel like wasting the time or energy on this topic.
Rams
I know you deleted it, but I totally understand why you feel the way that you do. It's nothing to be ashamed of. It happens to a lot of men. Also, that was really mean what you said about Jake. Even though you deleted it, I do think you should still apologize to him.
Also, thank you for the kind words you said about me. I don't know that I'm the coolest person on here, but I do appreciate what you said.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I know you deleted it, but I totally understand why you feel the way that you do. It's nothing to be ashamed of. It happens to a lot of men. Also, that was really mean what you said about Jake. Even though you deleted it, I do think you should still apologize to him.
Also, thank you for the kind words you said about me. I don't know that I'm the coolest person on here, but I do appreciate what you said.
Thanks Rams...
Jake? Who the heck is Jake? You sure you responded to the right thread?
You want to know why "the left" is called mean names ???
Because they think they are some kind of ruling master-class that gets to decide what views, and words, and flags, and thoughts, and beliefs, and, and, and are "acceptable" and they will decide what to do with people who refuse to follow their orders...They get to decide who will and wont be tolerated. THEY think the rest of us are merely minions with no rights, only "privelages" to be handed out or with-held by them.
Rinse, there is no reality wherein MSNBC can be used in congruence with the political center or near the political center. They are radicalization networks for.the left, meaning all cable political news networks. I just breezed your reply, so maybe I misread it.
Haven't you just moved from not acknowledging your leftie positioning to trying to qualify your position to that of a radical network presented as less than radical?
[/b]
quote
[B]Originally posted by MidEngineManiac:
If you want to know who your rulers are...
Just find out who you are not allowed to question or criticize.
Those that you really can't criticize EVER are adding new fringe groups to the l7st that they won't allow you to criticize.
Jake? Who the heck is Jake? You sure you responded to the right thread?
Rams
Jake Dragon? Damn! Hahah..
I was being silly, I was pretending like you said a bunch of things that you didn't... because you edited and deleted everything you said in that post. I have no idea what you said, I was just making up things that you might have said... (was being funny). Hah.
Originally posted by sourmash: Rinse, there is no reality wherein MSNBC can be used in congruence with the political center or near the political center. They are radicalization networks for.the left, meaning all cable political news networks. I just breezed your reply, so maybe I misread it.
Haven't you just moved from not acknowledging your leftie positioning to trying to qualify your position to that of a radical network presented as less than radical? . . .
I don't think that MSNBC is radical left. Just "left". But I puzzle over this:
quote
They are radicalization networks for.the left, meaning all cable political news networks.
What about FOX News? OAN? Newsmax? Don't they count, when it comes to political cable news networks? Are you just saying these are not worthy of mention? Surely you're not saying they are part of the "left"(?)
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-13-2022).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Jake Dragon? Damn! Hahah..
I was being silly, I was pretending like you said a bunch of things that you didn't... because you edited and deleted everything you said in that post. I have no idea what you said, I was just making up things that you might have said... (was being funny). Hah.
Well, you had me "going". I mean, with the way that some of the threads have been going, I thought you were being "real." Although I thought that you might be mistaking someone else's message for a "blackrams" message, or talking about a message that "blackrams" had posted on some other thread.
I saw what "blackrams" posted, before he deleted it. It didn't have anything to do with Jake Dragon or any other "Jake."
Originally posted by rinselberg:What about FOX News? OAN? Newsmax? Don't they count, when it comes to political cable news networks? Are you just saying these are not worthy of mention? Surely you're not saying they are part of the "left"(?)
I can't place OAN in the same group as Fox, CNN, MSNBC and Headline Whatever. As far as Newsmax goes, I don't know anything about them.
MSNBC and CNN, Headline News are radicalization sources for the left. Fox is the phony right. Fox is part of Con INC. (Conservative, INC.). Which is about as conservative as the Federal Reserve and FedEx are to being part of the federal gov.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Jake Dragon? Damn! Hahah..
I was being silly, I was pretending like you said a bunch of things that you didn't... because you edited and deleted everything you said in that post. I have no idea what you said, I was just making up things that you might have said... (was being funny). Hah.
Well, then you missed all the great things I said about you. It was all there and you missed it. Sure wish I could remember what I said.......................
I read over all these posts, and the thought that comes foremost to mind is...
What a total freakin' waste of everyone's time!
Yes, I include my own posts here among this waste of time.
Nothing of any real merit has been stated. No minds have been illuminated. Nothing has been accomplished.
Everyone would be better off just going for a walk.
Everybody, lol. No. You have 1 opinion. You don't speak for everybody. It sounds like you just don't want the discussion taking place. Just don't participate then. We're talking about ideals.
------------------ We're living in a Forge of Empires game.
Everybody, lol. No. You [Patrick] have 1 opinion. You don't speak for everybody.
It sounds like you just don't want the discussion taking place. Just don't participate then. We're talking about ideals.
Patrick represents but one opinion here--his own. But I don't see that he purports to speak for everybody, or for anyone else, with this remark. He's opining that everybody (including himself) has wasted their time by participating in this discussion; even considering that an online forum like this is never more than discussion for the sake of discussion.
I have no quibble with the remainder of this message [the text that is highlighted with the common red building brick-like color] from sourmash, who opines that Patrick doesn't want this discussion to continue, although I''m an agnostic on that point. Facially, at least, it appears that Patrick doesn't want this discussion to continue.
I wonder whether sourmash meant to end his message with "Ideas" instead of "Ideals."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-13-2022).]
You're describing your behavior and almost your entire persona. You can't NOT call people names.
You're attempting to speak for everyone, that it's a waste of EVERYONE'S time. No. You speak for one person. Telling everybody in a post about your opinion takes a lot more effort than just not posting. See all the people not posting for an example.
What we need a vaccine for intolerance. A single shot would be nice, but a two-shot dose would probably be better. Some here would need a booster, maybe more than one. Those that don't believe in being tolerant of each other will probably die a quick death from the Cliff ban Covid.
Patrick represents but one opinion here--his own. But I don't see that he purports to speak for everybody, or for anyone else, with this remark. He's opining that everybody (including himself) has wasted their time by participating in this discussion; even considering that an online forum like this is never more than discussion for the sake of discussion.
I have no quibble with the remainder of this message [the text that is highlighted with the common red building brick-like color] from sourmash, who opines that Patrick doesn't want this discussion to continue, although I''m an agnostic on that point. Facially, at least, it appears that Patrick doesn't want this discussion to continue.
I wonder whether sourmash meant to end his message with "Ideas" instead of "Ideals."
False. He's exactly attempting to speak for everyone, exhibited by stating EVERYONE'S time is wasted.
People on the right have no issue stating where they stand. People who believe they are on the right have no problem stating where they stand. People on the left are reluctant to state where they stand.
What we need a vaccine for intolerance. A single shot would be nice, but a two-shot dose would probably be better. Some here would need a booster, maybe more than one. Those that don't believe in being tolerant of each other will probably die a quick death from the Cliff ban Covid.
Some of us have beyond had enough of "liberal tolerance". No thanks, we will take freedom.
What we need a vaccine for intolerance. A single shot would be nice, but a two-shot dose would probably be better. Some here would need a booster, maybe more than one. Those that don't believe in being tolerant of each other will probably die a quick death from the Cliff ban Covid.
We used to have that, when people spoke freely about their ideas. People didn't get all butt-hurt when someone disagreed with them.
Just wanted to note that I just post in OT about things, various things, things I think are fun, artistic things, cultural things, things I think are important, news related things, philosophical things. Things I think might be related to whatever someone elses a post is a about. I think this is normal. If I post about problems I see in society, where I think they are fueled, or started, or anything of the like, I'm not calling out anyone here, if one disagrees with me they can easily reply to the content and subject. Thats what I think message boards are about.
People on the right have no issue stating where they stand. People who believe they are on the right have no problem stating where they stand. People on the left are reluctant to state where they stand.
I appreciate that comment. Although, I don't consider myself far right but I have no doubt where I stand. Thanks
Repeating the same bullsh!t over and over again doesn't somehow make it true. This is a prime example of why I posted what I did.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
I read over all these posts, and the thought that comes foremost to mind is...
What a total freakin' waste of everyone's time!
Yes, I include my own posts here among this waste of time.
Nothing of any real merit has been stated. No minds have been illuminated. Nothing has been accomplished.
Everyone would be better off just going for a walk.
CLICK FOR FULL SIZE
The first line of my quoted post makes it quite clear. I was expressing my own thoughts... on how little real benefit this "discussion" has for anyone participating in it. The multitude of worthless responses from sourmash only cements my assessment.
All political discussions are worthless. Nobody is going to convert anybody to their way of thinking. It's basically arguing just for the sake of arguing.
All political discussions are worthless. Nobody is going to convert anybody to their way of thinking. It's basically arguing just for the sake of arguing.
I've seen many people reading political threads (but not posting) gain value from the discussion and even have their minds changed. I've seen it in PMs sometimes. Or people will agree privately, which is a validation for what they thought as well as myself.
The goal isn't just changing minds. It's upholding truths too. Sometimes it's clarifying a person's position. Opposition or not.
How do you know the boundaries of what you believe if you never exercise your opinions? Similarly important is discovering that someone doesn't want.to plot their belief. The only reasons I can think that they would so that is to evade defending a position, or perhaps shame? Idk.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick: The first line of my quoted post makes it quite clear. I was expressing my own thoughts... on how little real benefit this "discussion" has for anyone participating in it. The multitude of worthless responses from sourmash only cements my assessment.
You want cause issues if you use the singular form "my" instead of the plural "everyone's". You can neg the thread, but the activity says differently. I don't see that anyone established that critical thinking skills and freedom DOESN'T come after groups and people start calling people mean names as in the opening discussion.
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 02-14-2022).]
I've seen many people reading political threads (but not posting) gain value from the discussion and even have their minds changed. I've seen it in PMs sometimes. Or people will agree privately, which is a validation for what they thought as well as myself.
The goal isn't just changing minds. It's upholding truths too. Sometimes it's clarifying a person's position. Opposition or not.
How do you know the boundaries of what you believe if you never exercise your opinions? Similarly important is discovering that someone doesn't want.to plot their belief. The only reasons I can think that they would so that is to evade defending a position, or perhaps shame? Idk.
You want cause issues if you use the singular form "my" instead of the plural "everyone's". You can neg the thread, but the activity says differently. I don't see that anyone established that critical thinking skills and freedom DOESN'T come after groups and people start calling people mean names as in the opening discussion.
Re: text in boldface
That's one possible outcome. Sometimes it happens. But I think it's often the case that the consequence or sequel to people being called "mean names" is NOT an enhancement or improvement in anyone's or any group's critical thinking skills and freedoms.
Well, the goal is to shout people down by having them censored from public view.
How do you think those people handle that for doing something that is really nothing? Do you believe they are "cured" of their thought crimes? That they don't hold a grudge against an authoritarian system? That they don't seek validation for what they have said or done from others, from history? Did Marjorie Taylor Greene (sp) actually modify her understanding? Has JK Rowling changed her opinion? Mel Gibson?
In the case of prominent talkers wanting to retain or regain income from networks they have to totally grovel and they're still going to suffer and eternally apologize on queue when prompted/interviewed. Like Whoopi. I'd say they can't fire her yet. They built her up with too much support already. She can cause a big backlash with the pillar they've placed her upon.
In the case of Turdeau appearing in black face, they have a political lever to make him do to the public what he's told to do. If not, they have all the press to destroy him at their whim. He's the perfect tool for the Black Hand.
