Insulting one's allies - to what end?

Pinball1970 said:
A thread topic could be stated quite easily. "I tired to say x about subject y but was warned not to."
I have not seen that yet.
Click to expand...
That's what Tiassa did. He responded to exchemists question first by saying that he had already answered, and then in more detail albeit in a manner akin to my Pentagon analogy. You'd need to go back to the answer Tiassa originally wrote to see what he was saying in those redacted bits.

Pinball1970 said:
I have seen where posters just start attacking other posters using the subject matter as a platform to do so.
I have made personal attacks when I think they are warranted.
When that gets out of hand I use the ignore option sometimes.
Click to expand...
Sounds reasonable. Unless the person you want to ignore is a moderator. In which case you can't. ;)
 
Seattle said:
I don't think exchemist is a terf or a pilled masculinist but I'm just saying that considering that my native tongue is the White American Historical Experience
Click to expand...
Oh I'm definitely a TERF. I think J K Rowling is spot-on. But that's another subject. :biggrin:
 
parmalee said:
Dude, you're better than this. It's not "impenetrable shit" and I think you know that. You may not feel like putting in the effort to get through it at the moment, but that's something else entirely. Won't add much in that regards, as Sarkus has already more than adequately addressed this.

There is someone here for whom I have zero doubt that Tiassa's post reads as "impenetrable shit"--hint: it's the guy who couldn't identify the strawman argument from a selection of examples. That guy, to all indications, also seems weirdly proud of his own--frankly astonishing at times--ignorance and apparent inability to respond cogently and coherently to any argument. Poe's Law largely exists for people like that guy. You're not that guy.
Click to expand...
Do me a favour then. Just post the link to the cited example Tiassa gives, somewhere in post 54, of someone being threatened into silence for expressing an opinion on a thread topic. That was the answer I was looking for and I could not see it.

I admit I did give up reading after a few paragraphs of nebulous, meandering shit, not having all day to waste decoding Tiassa's absurdly convoluted style of expression. That, if you know me, is typical of me. So no, I'm not "better than that". That is the real me: "Get to the effing point or eff off." Er, Dude?
 
Seattle said:
If we're going to do that can "we" quit throwing "Seattle" into every post while "we" are at it?
Click to expand...
So "we" couldn't ask "ourselves" if the city of [redacted] is having any issues with the wildfires, for example? ;)
 
Sarkus said:
That's what Tiassa did. He responded to exchemists question first by saying that he had already answered, and then in more detail albeit in a manner akin to my Pentagon analogy. You'd need to go back to the answer Tiassa originally wrote to see what he was saying in those redacted bits.
Click to expand...
Ok Ill check.
 
exchemist said:
I admit I did give up reading after a few paragraphs of nebulous, meandering shit, not having all day to waste decoding Tiassa's absurdly convoluted style of expression.
Click to expand...
So, in other words, you're saying it's not necessarily "impenetrable" shit?
exchemist said:
That, if you know me, is typical of me. So no, I'm not "better than that". That is the real me: "Get to the effing point or eff off." Er, Dude?
Click to expand...
You just took two posts to say what you could have said in one--you could have just said that you didn't want to waste all day decoding in the first place. Like I said, they're two different things (impenetrable and not wishing to take the time).
 
Seattle said:
Some are a little too OCD and literal and too focused on name calling, staying on topic, defining terms, complaining, anything but talking about the gist of the subject matter.

Someone says "no one thinks there should be no government" and someone else responds "I know one person who thinks that and you said no one thinks that...gotcha"

Instead of addressing the point which is (most) everyone agrees that we need some government and the question is how much?

Two reasonable people can disagree on the level of government needed but it's hard to find two reasonable people here.

One will say "you're not literate, you're an idiot, you said it's hot in Phoenix but you didn't cite a study..."

Those are all tactics when someone wants to win a debate and doesn't want have a discussion.

It is interesting that Bitcoin has doubled in price since we had that particular discussion though...
Click to expand...
You didn't happen to save any book reports you wrote in grade school? I'd love to see those.

Fuck, I'll pay you to write like a movie review or something--just so long as it includes an attempt at a synopsis.
 
TheVat said:
I look in some threads lately and think wait...what is the topic again?
Click to expand...
It's either Trump, et al, insulting allies; the fact that it was way less hot in Phoenix in the 80s and that somehow has bearing upon the heat in Phoenix now (?); or JamesR insinuating that he has mind-reading capabilities. I'm not sure.
 
exchemist said:
Oh I'm definitely a TERF. I think J K Rowling is spot-on. But that's another subject. :biggrin:
Click to expand...
It's another subject, yes, but briefly:

Gender fluidity is present throughout all human societies and documented history--likewise for the non-human world. It's never been a prominent feature, but neither is it statistically insignificant. Gender is performative, and always has been.

Where it's been purportedly less prominent, but far more likely simply suppressed, is largely within cultures dominated by Christianity or Islam.
 
parmalee said:
So, in other words, you're saying it's not necessarily "impenetrable" shit?

You just took two posts to say what you could have said in one--you could have just said that you didn't want to waste all day decoding in the first place. Like I said, they're two different things (impenetrable and not wishing to take the time).
Click to expand...
Probably because it's a difference without a distinction to those without OCD.
 
parmalee said:
You didn't happen to save any book reports you wrote in grade school? I'd love to see those.

Fuck, I'll pay you to write like a movie review or something--just so long as it includes an attempt at a synopsis.
Click to expand...
I'll pay you to take a chill pill. I'd write the movie review but I don't want to take your last dollar.
 
parmalee said:
It's either Trump, et al, insulting allies; the fact that it was way less hot in Phoenix in the 80s and that somehow has bearing upon the heat in Phoenix now (?); or JamesR insinuating that he has mind-reading capabilities. I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
You forgot arguing about the difference between impenetrable and too convoluted to bother with.
 
Pinball1970 said:
Starmer is doing some sabre rattling of his own with Diego Garcia.
Click to expand...
Not exactly the same thing: they currently belong to the UK, and he's agreeing to cede control to Mauritius. They seem to have put a hold on negotiations until the Orange felon has given his agreement, given the US military base on the island, but that's hardly sabre rattling, is it? Or am I missing something here?

No doubt Dump will want to take over control of Diego Garcia as well, and simply demand the UK hand it over to the US, but we'll wait to see what happens.

The Orange felon, on the other hand, is threatening invasion of Greenland, the takeover of Canada, the Panama Canal etc.

If what Starmer is doing (or what I understand Starmer to be doing) with Chagos islands is considered to be a similar case of "sabre rattling", then this is just another example of false equivalence narrative that normalises Trump's behaviour.
 
parmalee said:
So, in other words, you're saying it's not necessarily "impenetrable" shit?

You just took two posts to say what you could have said in one--you could have just said that you didn't want to waste all day decoding in the first place. Like I said, they're two different things (impenetrable and not wishing to take the time).
Click to expand...
Right, so you can't produce an example demonstrating Tiassa's accusation either, in spite of apparently having more patience than I in decoding Tiassa's gibberish.

My conclusion is that, as I suspected, Tiassa's accusation is false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top