posted
There is a hatrack braindrain going on. Up to 50% of our energy is being used to disprove lies and half truths being posted on this forum.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is a hatrack braindrain going on. Up to 50% of our energy is being used to disprove lies and half truths being posted on this forum.
I am kind of curious as to why I'm the only one who seems to attempt to do this with at least one other poster who posts lies and half-truths fairly often. Is it because of the target de jure's far more prolific posting?
posted
Dagonee, it may also have to do with the fact that the way the target-du-jour posts tends to be highly sarcastic, smug, offensive, and grating. People tend to respond very strongly to that.
To me, it has less to do with the content of the posts that with the style of the particular poster. I love to read thoughtfully considered opinions that are different than mine. You and mr_porteiro_head are both great for that, and I've actually been meaning to thank both of you for it for quite some time. Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, it may be me, but I find it unfair that you imply something like that about another poster without naming him/her Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, Thor is not just a partisan, he's an eccentric partisan. He's someone we can smile and nod at, then go about our daily lives. Chad isn't.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was Thor. Right. Sorry. I didn't figure that. I mean, you can hardly evitate Chad since he is in almost all threads, but I haven't read something from Thor since a moment, I think.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Thor does receive a lot more leeway than other people. If he renamed himself without telling us and started posting the same stuff, wouldn't we crucify him?
Bob did lay the smack on him on one of his recent threads though. Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, see, it's posts like that that make people respond so badly.
I like reading political threads, but when it's just so much ranting and finger-pointing and calling people the "l-word," yeah, no thanks. As near as I can tell, it isn't adding anything to the discussion.
quote:Dagonee, it may be me, but I find it unfair that you imply something like that about another poster without naming him/her
I thought it would be unfair to name him/her out of context. But s/he is not Thor, and is often as highly sarcastic, smug, offensive, and grating as anything Chad puts out. The fact that s/he is more articulate may help in escaping detection, I guess.
posted
I thought it would be unfair to name him/her out of context. But s/he is not Thor, and is often as highly sarcastic, smug, offensive, and grating as anything Chad puts out.
Hey, don't talk about me as if I'm not even here. Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To some people, it seems to be. I've seen people use it as a derogatory label plenty of times. Not here until VERY recently, though.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Adam has an "n" word fixation. Why do you keep talking about the "n" word when no one else does. That's like the 3rd time I've seen you post it...
Or are you meaning like "neo" Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the bad l-word is "liar," a word that seems out of place here on the Internet, the realm of lies and misinformation.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, my posts using the "L" word are bad, but someone like Senor "Tom" calling people "hard-core bigots"..is acceptable...because why again?
The intollerance of the majority of "lefties" on this board is absolutely astounding!
Grow up people.
What about the intolerance of us conservatives for many posts of yours and some posts of Tom's?
Of course, Tom has a very high ratio of rational, thought-provoking posts to over-the-top posts, and is very comfortably into the "productive poster" realm.
You haven't made the needle on my Productive Poster Detector (patent pending) quiver even once.
posted
Dag, part of it is also the lack of defensiveness/follow-up attacks by the liberal poster you’re referring to. S/he lets his/her posts speak for themselves, in the main, rather than getting into long back-and-forth arguments, and thus doesn’t derail entire threads, or spill into other threads.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, it has nothing to do with your viewpoints. It has to do with a certain approach in which you imply (and in some cases, outright state) that YOUR viewpoints are 100% correct, and anyone who thinks differently is an utter moron.
It also has to do with your apparent view that anyone who is, to use your word, a "leftie" has clearly not considered their viewpoint at all. You condescend to anyone who shows even the slightest deparature from your view, and talk to them as if they were a) complete boneheads or b) immature children.
This, to me, is a highly offensive, rude way to go about discussion, especially given the fact that most discussion that goes on at hatrack is civil and thoughtful.
I admit to being more than a little frustrated with you because your discourse is neither civil nor thoughtful.
No one has called you a "righty" or a conservative nut-job, have they? No. Most people here have responded to you with FAR more thoughtfulness and courtesy than you have shown them. The only "intolerance" you've been subjected to has been an intolerance for jingoism and spouting the party line without considering carefully what you're saying AND what others are saying.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, I can't believe I've never given CStroman my "take your partisan chunk-blowing to Ornery" spiel. It's been a while since I even tried that. Oh well.
P.S. I'm afraid I might have called CStroman a nutjob or something similar.
quote:Dag, part of it is also the lack of defensiveness/follow-up attacks by the liberal poster you’re referring to. S/he lets his/her posts speak for themselves, in the main, rather than getting into long back-and-forth arguments, and thus doesn’t derail entire threads, or spill into other threads.
I can see that as a reason for the different treatment, although I'm not sure I agree fully with it.
There definitly is a different level of disruptiveness between the two, though.
posted
i will agree however that it is probably the political tones in almost every thread. i was talking to lindsay last night about how the world of advertising and news is nasty this month and will only get nastier as it gets closer to election day, and as a result it takes alot out of me to keep myself in check for the most part and not just crawl into a ball and cry or scream, Dean-style. thats probably why hatrack has been leaving my brain as jelly.
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah well, on a strictly monitored scale of justice, I don’t agree with it either. On a purely utilitarian, “how much is this person’s eccentricity going to interfere with my enjoyment of an otherwise good conversation” scale, I think it’s a reasonable dynamic.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't call anyone moron or nut job or any such names, although many do fit the bill to a "T".
I have a point and I argue it. If someone disagreeing with it makes them feel like an idiot, pick a different point to defend.
For me there are things I believe in. I've never asked anyone to believe in mine. Quite the opposite.
But if I make a certain viewpoint look stupid. It's not my fault that it's one you hold. It's yours.
I would encourage anyone to look up my threads to see if I attacked anyone personally.
You will find that it is others like Tom or Ben or Kwea who have nothing other than "name calling" to depend on.
They can do it all they want. It reflects on THEM, not me.
But if you are looking for someone who will abandon their viewpoints because it gets attacked, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah well, on a strictly monitored scale of justice, I don’t agree with it either. On a purely utilitarian, “how much is this person’s eccentricity going to interfere with my enjoyment of an otherwise good conversation” scale, I think it’s a reasonable dynamic.
posted
Don't feed your ego like that - you aren't being objected to because of your opinions or your theoretical debating skills. You are being objected to because of your uncivilized and childish behavior.
quote:But if I make a certain viewpoint look stupid. It's not my fault that it's one you hold. It's yours.
If you would actually "make a certain viewpoint look stupid" you'd probably get cheers from both sides.
Instead, you call a viewpoint stupid (or socialist), provide lackluster proof and questionable support, and then refuse to fully meet posts that call your reasoning into question.
The fact that you often utterly mischaracterize others' beliefs and posts doesn't help either.
posted
the problem i've found with "discussions" with you chad is that you do not answer questions asked of you. you manipulate questions asked to you to state a completley different point. you remind me an awful lot of the debating styles of the current POTUS. you keep reiterating earlier statements without bringing anything new to the conversation even if the conversation has evolved. i can count a few times where questions about the decisions made by the current POTUS have been responded to by you simply accusing Kerry of being incapable of leading the nation or making decisions, whether its related to the point or not. or you just don't answer or follow up at all.
[ October 12, 2004, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Ben ]
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*feels sad he didn't make the name-calling list*
I must admit I was letting my extreme disdain for your intellectual understanding of factuality and politics drip through in some recent posts, and I'm somewhat disappointed, though hardly surprised, that you didn't notice.
However, I rather suspect its because most the time I find your statements say exactly what I would want to say about them all by themselves. Your masterful economy at including the best arguments against yourself in your own posts makes my role easier .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's just it - if you actually made people look stupid, people would notice. Do you understand that when you attack without respect or discipline, it is NOT the person you are attacking that is diminished?
This isn't a playground where the rudest person wins.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chad, it is most certainly NOT that you make a certain viewpoint look stupid (unless, perhaps, it's the unsupported viewpoints you yourself are espousing). It is that you are rude and uncivil in your responses. You assume, and post as if, anyone responding to you is an idiot. This is rude. Again...read the post carefully...it has NOTHING to do with your particular views. It has EVERYTHING to do with how you treat Hatrackers.
I've seen people who basically agree with your conservative stance call you rude, and you never respond. Address the rudeness. Not the views.
That, my friend, is why people call you a troll. Because you are unendingly uncivil to everyone who posts here.
[edited to add, I'm gonna find it REALLY ironic if my frustration with Chad actually makes me finally hit 500 posts]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
