***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[Belgium]

Excerpt:
It's not like he could even if he wanted to. Far too much text, not enough big flashy images and not enough repetition of his name. He might be able to get through a paragraph or 3 if he tries really hard.

 

[blastercombo]

You are speaking in a generalities though. I dont think he attest to rapist and sexist. And this is moreso to defend smart insightful repugs from speaking they mind without being labeled nazi supporters and baby rape apologist becuase they voted for a repug who supports trump.

I feel its a slippery slope to find the lowest common denominator in others just to rid yourself of having to think about **** in a different light.

I would hope you wouldnt want to be labeled “x” becuase of who you know, knew, sleep with , voted for, etc.

Maybe he aint allowed to have the benefit of the doubt. If thats how you want to play it.

Bro what? Go back a read what he’s said. There is no grey area to my comment or generalities.

 

[Methodical Management]

Maybe i aint nuanced enough to see how he brings truly irreprehensible damage by what ya consider anatagonistic.

His post are empty and are rather crass. But not malicious. Or maybe that is enough to get banned. I dont like the precedent. Its all im saying.

Definitions for Internet trolling are varied, but most share the same core elements. One popular definition can be found on Wikipedia: "a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain."

Does that sound like anyone you know?


Let's start with a classic example of trolling on which we can all agree: "this thread is now about Spiderman." A user enters a thread that they consider somehow unworthy of earnest discussion and attempts to hijack it.

Compare that example to this: someone believes that this thread's regular participants have created an "echo chamber," which they seek to disrupt. To achieve that, they attempt to control the narrative through tone policing and basic diversionary tactics. They throw out bait, get someone to bite, and substantive discussions are soon buried in a heap of nonsense.

Only one or two bad actors are needed to ruin a discussion, in the same way that, if you're trying to ruin a game of basketball, only one out of the ten players needs to decide that they'd rather wrestle or punt the ball each time it reaches them.

This is not a function of "being conservative" or holding an unpopular view. It is entirely possible to respectfully discuss an issue and present differing perspectives without throwing chaff or stooping to ad hominem attacks.


Users with all manner of political views can attest that they've had posts removed and have received warnings for posting insults, including, in quite a few cases, insults directed at the very people now alleging ideological bias.


I am constantly called into this thread via user reports and, when time permits, I post here myself on occasion out of personal interest. There's more ideological diversity within this thread than you seem to believe. Let's say this is a liberal echo chamber. Who's the consensus choice among the Democratic presidential candidates who've announced thus far? How are those disagreements handled? Do those discussions tend to focus on the merits, or are they instead side tracked through familiar distractions?

When two or more users discuss Bernie Sanders' "tone deafness" with it comes to racism and sexism, are you more likely to see participants citing actual examples, or are they instead arguing over whether the phrase "tone deaf" is ableist?


If there's sincere interest in a good faith exchange, strategies for constructive disagreement is a worthy subject of discussion.

Last week, a piece in The Atlantic addressed exactly that: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...e-science-of-arguing-about-everything/586534/

I think that's worth talking about. I think this article about how former-slave owning families recovered their relative wealth and status in the decades following abolition is worth discussion.

I think the substance of the Mueller report is worth discussing.


I don't think the fatuous claim that crimes do not exist unless successfully prosecuted is worthy of discussion - much less worth overwhelming the historically significant events unfolding all around us.
It's a cheap diversionary ploy that is intended to frustrate and disrupt.

 

[Mark Antony]

Arguing for the right of someone to troll is peak 2019.

 

[whywesteppin]

President Warren laying it out, saying she's for impeachment:

 

[Mark Antony]

President Warren laying it out, saying she's for impeachment:

And here's why I checked out, because even with the juiciest parts redacted, the report confirms this and it's still business as usual.

 

[boris]

President Warren laying it out, saying she's for impeachment:

Just to add, he and the GOP have done nothing to combat future election interference efforts. He has publicly disagreed with the intelligence community on multiple occasions when discussing the topic of election interference. He stood next to Vladimir Putin and said that he believes Putin over U.S. intelligence.

I'm just not sure how much worse it has to get before people do something. If the Democrats believe that this is not right, they need to do something about it. The President of the United States of America needs to be held to higher standards.

 

[plansb]

Just to add, he and the GOP have done nothing to combat future election interference efforts. He has publicly disagreed with the intelligence community on multiple occasions when discussing the topic of election interference. He stood next to Vladimir Putin and said that he believes Putin over U.S. intelligence.

I'm just not sure how much worse it has to get before people do something. If the Democrats believe that this is not right, they need to do something about it. The President of the United States of America needs to be held to higher standards.

Thats what gets me. No one addressing it, it’s absurd.

 

[IATT]

Just to add, he and the GOP have done nothing to combat future election interference efforts. He has publicly disagreed with the intelligence community on multiple occasions when discussing the topic of election interference. He stood next to Vladimir Putin and said that he believes Putin over U.S. intelligence.

I'm just not sure how much worse it has to get before people do something. If the Democrats believe that this is not right, they need to do something about it. The President of the United States of America needs to be held to higher standards.

Democrats are scared to act.. and GOP will only act if it's the other side or anyone critical of them


Like look at the disnegenious outrage they got over this:

 

[Nike Jordan]

The Columbine High School shooting was twenty years ago today and we still haven't a damn thing about guns in this country.

 

[elpablo21]

The Columbine High School shooting was twenty years ago today and we still haven't a damn thing about guns in this country.

I remember when I thought Sandy Hook would be a turning point.

**** was I thinking

 

[boris]

Democrats are scared to act.. and GOP will only act if it's the other side or anyone critical of them


Like look at the disnegenious outrage they got over this:

I'm pretty convinced a conspiracy between Trump and Russia could have been proven and the GOP would still do nothing. Like you said, they only act against Democrats and their opponents. They play by different rules.

 

[blastercombo]

I remember when I thought Sandy Hook would be a turning point.

**** was I thinking

Oh it was. It showed us that money is more important than lives in the eyes of law makers

 

[gry60]

These are the people some of y'all are trying to reason with:

ALBUQUERQUE — The F.B.I. on Saturday arrested the leader of a right-wing militia that was detaining migrant families at gunpoint near the border in southern New Mexico, as the group faced a torrent of criticism for its tactics.

Hector Balderas, New Mexico’s attorney general, said federal agents had arrested the leader, Larry Mitchell Hopkins, who had been operating under the alias Johnny Horton Jr. Mr. Balderas said in a statement that Mr. Hopkins was arrested on charges of firearms possession by a felon.

“This is a dangerous felon who should not have weapons around children and families,” Mr. Balderas said. “Today’s arrest by the F.B.I. indicates clearly that the rule of law should be in the hands of trained law enforcement officials, not armed vigilantes.”

The firearms charge against Mr. Hopkins is relatively minor. But it is likely the start of a deeper investigation into his activities and those of the militia, and opens the way for the authorities to bring more serious charges like kidnapping and impersonating a police officer or an employee of the United States.

First thing they should teach him is that illegal =/= dark skin and/or exercise of the Spanish language.

 

[IATT]

I'm pretty convinced a conspiracy between Trump and Russia could have been proven and the GOP would still do nothing. Like you said, they only act against Democrats and their opponents. They play by different rules.

These dudes every step along the way have pushed the narrative of claiming victory

Even after the redacted version's release they go on about BS and referring to the BS Barr came out with

Would like to think at some point democrats would grow a backbone.. I mean at least you got a handful of women that seem to have a pair in the party

 

[IATT]

 

[kdawg]

Is it just me or does that picture looked doctored to anyone else?

Those blue pants are more flattering than I’d expect...

 

[KHUFU]

White men wanting to remain in control of the world. That is all that this is about. Trump owes people, and he has to make the return on their investment. There is nothing wrong with taking information from the russians. This means that there is nothing wrong with white men, taking information from other white men, in order to maintain white male supremacy. If Obama did this with an African nation, a muslim nation, war would have ensued. Actually, Trump and his birther madness made sure that Obama was being kept on notice.

 

[Brownstone]

The Columbine High School shooting was twenty years ago today and we still haven't a damn thing about guns in this country.

How sad that my initial reaction now is thank god only 12 people died.

 

[IATT]

Is it just me or does that picture looked doctored to anyone else?

Those blue pants are more flattering than I’d expect...

 

[cubanref]

 

[IATT]

 

[boris]

These dudes every step along the way have pushed the narrative of claiming victory

Even after the redacted version's release they go on about BS and referring to the BS Barr came out with

Would like to think at some point democrats would grow a backbone.. I mean at least you got a handful of women that seem to have a pair in the party

Yeah, I agree. We're just gonna keep hearing bull**** like this no matter what, so they might as well put up a fight.

 

[boris]

 

[blastercombo]

Doctor said this dude is in excellent health?

Aunt Becky worked the medical field for generations I see