posted
From what I could tell, the "ground game" was really well organized with literally millions of volunteers.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
more mormons voted for bush in 2004 than voted for romney in 2012
pew ALSO noted and presented straightforward data showing that the whole "the MSM is sticking up for Obama and working to make him win" was false and that in general both candidates got equal positive/negative/neutral coverage
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam, the prophecies of the Bible are absolutely reliable. It is merely my opinion, based on what I know of these things, that it will be within nine years.
Tom, you called the SDA teaching that there will be a National Sunday Law in America to be "hysterically funny."
Around the turn of the century in 1900, there was a very powerful movement to enact such a Sunday Law at the national level. It almost succeeded. Adventists such as A.T. Jones testified before Congress against the law. The fervor mysteriously faded away--probably because God felt that those people who needed to be His faithful witnesses during the Final Conflict were not ready.
However, the Lord's Day Alliance still exists, and still has as its goal enactment of a national Sunday Law in America.
What you don't seem to appreciate is how things can change--how conventional thinking can change.
In ancient times, while Israel was on its way from Egypt to the Promised Land, King Balak tried to bribe Baalim the prophet to curse Israel. Baalim was unable to. But he apparently did clue in Balak that the way to get God to remove His blessings from Israel and curse them Himself, was to entice Israel to rebel against God. So Balak sent multitudes of pagan temple prostitutes to entice Israel to turn aside to their form of worship, and as a result a terrible plague of venomous serpents broke out that decimated the people of Israel. The plague was not stopped until at God's direction, Moses lifted up a brass serpent on a rod (the origin of the modern symbol of the Caduceus), which was a symbol of Christ bearing the sins of humanity (as Jesus said in John 3:14, 15), and everyone who had faith enough to look at it lived. This is the way--Balak's method of enticing the people to rebel against God--that Satan has learned to work to accomplish his ends. This is what he is trying to do now in America.
And America's influence in the world is so great, that when America commits itself to this course, the whole world will follow suit. As portrayed in Revelation 13. (The religious tyranny that will arise in America is the second beast in that chapter--the one that began as a "lamb-like" or Christ-like beast, and then began to speak as a dragon, as it began to lead in the path Satan would have it go.)
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Make sure you stop buying insurance then, and in nine years don't bother filling up at the pump.
Anyway, if you are really interested in getting people to believe in the predictive power of the Bible, you're actually a very bad witness for that case. You've proven repeatedly over the years and especially over the past several months that you are *really bad* at recognizing good predictions and *really good* at believing in predictions that are predictably, hugely wrong.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is your opinion Rakeesh, and it is you and all my detractors who are wrong. My predictions will stand. Your denials will not.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: And America's influence in the world is so great, that when America commits itself to this course, the whole world will follow suit. As portrayed in Revelation 13. (The religious tyranny that will arise in America is the second beast in that chapter--the one that began as a "lamb-like" or Christ-like beast, and then began to speak as a dragon, as it began to lead in the path Satan would have it go.)
But as Sam pointed out, a lot of the world has already legalized gay marriage years before the US. So actually the US is kind of following other counties on this one.
And as for America selling a particular brand of Christianity around the world... yes. That is clearly working out so well. Or not. It's influential, sure. But just because the US does something, it doesn't mean anyone else will. There are lots of things about the US that are pretty different from how anyone else does things.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your predictions have already fallen. You have a much worse success rate than just writing predictions on a dartboard and throwing darts at it. You are laughably bad at recognizing the reality of the world you inhabit, and scarily good at denying anything that doesn't belong in your crazy-bubble. I'm just glad we're diametrically opposed on every major issue, because if you shared my positions on any of them I'd be embarrassed as hell to be associated with you.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: That is your opinion Rakeesh, and it is you and all my detractors who are wrong. My predictions will stand. Your denials will not.
Ron, you said this pretty much verbatim about several things which turned out to be completely wrong.
You said it about the outstanding prediction agreement you still have with me that Obama would end his term impeached with the help of Democrats in Congress. Do you remember that?
I said that it was wrong and you would be wrong and you just repeated "Samprimary it is you and all my detractors who are wrong" and talked about your track record with predictions, even though your track record so far is SO wrong that it actually is an outlier for wrongness (the laws of probability alone make it hard to be wrong as consistently as you are)
You said it when people contested your claims that Palin would be the "de facto" leader of the Republican party by now.
Do you just shut your brain down to understanding when a prediction of yours has failed? Your every political prediction is like the Danlo the Wild of economic crash deadlines.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just came across a copy of the email concerning Pastor Darnall's dream.
quote:From: Mark and Pixie Vincent [mailto:pvincent1@woh.rr.com] Sent: 22 August 2009 00:33 To: Subject:
I have talked to the daughter of Jack Darnell myself. She says it's true.
-- Pix
****************
Here is the dream info of Jack Darnall:
"Back in the 1980s, Elder Jack Darnall, a well-known Seventh-day Adventist pastor in conservative circles, who ran an end-time training centre to prepare people for end-time events, held a prayer meeting in his house. As the people were leaving, he called aside another man and said to him that he felt impressed to tell him an impressive dream that he had. In the dream, he dreamed that it was the time when Jesus returned to earth in power and great glory. America had an African-American president (something unthinkable in the 1980s), when Jesus returned. He was tall and thin, with close-cropped hair and large ears. When elected, at first he was greatly beloved by the people, but then he became a terrible dictator."
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: pew ALSO noted and presented straightforward data showing that the whole "the MSM is sticking up for Obama and working to make him win" was false and that in general both candidates got equal positive/negative/neutral coverage
quote: who ran an end-time training centre to prepare people for end-time events
I don't know about the rest of it - but that sounds awesome. How do you prepare for something like that?
Do they cover how to levitate up to heaven while keeping your knees together so no-one can see up your skirt?
quote: America had an African-American president (something unthinkable in the 1980s), when Jesus returned. He was tall and thin, with close-cropped hair and large ears.
Maybe they meant Will Smith - hey, maybe he'll do a Ronald Regan. Or, actually, that describes a lot of people.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: I don't know about the rest of it - but that sounds awesome. How do you prepare for something like that?
If you're anything like the Fun!dies in the extended family of one of my partners: You practice viewing, like, any political event you like as a hastening of the obvious inevitable end of the world, and let it slowly drive you (more) neurotic and withdrawn, and convinced of things like how music in minor keys is satanic.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yeah, Dan's complaining elsewhere that Hatrack is a cesspool of smugness -- which I find rather amusing, given that Hatrack has, compared to most of the rest of the Internet, been remarkably free of vitriol or smugness as far as I can see.
Hey now, I never said "cesspool!"
I don't really give this stuff a pass just because there are places where it's exponentially worse (like the place Mucus linked). I'm measuring against a target of "zero smugness" not a target of "the average level of smugness on the internet."
By the latter standard, I agree, Hatrack is fine. But... that's meaningless, to me.
Anyway, I just went back through and found a bunch of posts that fit the bill for various reasons.
Some of the stuff was vitriol directed at OSC over the election... when you win, and one of the guys you beat cries, and then you all get together and mock him, that strikes me as smug self-congratulation. Even if he shouldn't have cried, it doesn't excuse the mockery. I actually didn't quote many of these because there were just too many and I sort of don't want to get in the middle of that.
Some of it was in the vein of the Maddow quote, that is, "advice" for Republicans, or some insight as to how they've changed so much from the good Republicans of the past that I totally support it's just these current extreme extremists that I can't stand.
And, surprising no one, Sam features heavily!
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Okay, I lied. One last comment on the article.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: He thinks more and more like a child every year. I think he thinks this is a good thing, btw.
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I thought Romney's concession speech was extremely weak, dispassionate, and paint-by-numbers. His one chance to act like a real human being and he still read that boring thing straight from the prompter. I'd like him so much more if he'd had a meltdown. Any sort of genuine moment from him would've been good.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: his ability to 'etch-a-sketch' was actually pretty much the reason why he rose to the top of the republican primary system. Without blatant dishonesty and the willing capacity to reinvent yourself dependent upon the audience, no candidate who can appeal to and stand good probability to win the republican primary can even remotely hope to appeal to and win the general election (see: santorum) and no candidate who can appeal to and stand good probability to win the general election can even remotely hope to appeal to and win the republican primary (see: huntsman).
The GOP is so completely broken right now that their only hope left to the presidency comes in the form of expert and callous mendacity — a person who can expertly play its own primary and then turn around and run a completely different platform for the general election.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was certain that, given the data, President Obama should win but with all the voting shenanigans going on in FL, OH, and PA I was still worried.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: A companion piece to boots's, written by a conservative pundit who predicted that Obama was going to win. Here's the money quote:
quote:One of the many reasons that the conservative movement is in such deep trouble is that those who were wrong here will suffer no consequences and those who knew the truth will receive no benefit.
This sums a lot of it to me. I was basically forced out of the Republican Party during the Bush years as it bought more and more into embracing fantasy and outright falsehood with no regard for the consequences. There are a lot of important parts of what was traditionally the conservative viewpoint/philosophy/ideology that I feel have largely been lost in favor of courting the ignorant, angry, and old who prefer lies that agree with them to truth that doesn't.
I believe that, although this may seem like a boon to many liberals, ultimately this is seriously damaging the country as a whole, not just to to the conservative parts/movement. Not only do we have an entire segment of the populace that chooses to get their information from a source that leaves them worse informed that if they didn't look at news at all, but (even if you don't agree with me that a lot of the conservative ideology is important) the principled opposition that the should be presenting is a necessary component of refining and reigning in the excesses of the liberals and Democrats. They seem to have largely swapped that for opposition based on shallow ideology and cultivated personal hatred.
The Republicans have spent a lot of more than the last decade actively degrading ideals I think are very important, like responsibility, honesty, integrity, etc. I'm not sure exactly what these concepts look like in the minds of those who have bought into their perversions, but I know that they scare me.
quote:But if the conservative movement and the conservative media and the republican party is stuck in a vacuum-sealed, door-locked, spin cycle of telling what makes them feel good, and denying the actual lived truth of the world, we are all deprived, as a nation, of the very debate between competing, feasible ideas about real problems.
Last night the republicans got shellacked, and they had NO idea it was coming. And we saw them in real time - in real, humiliating time - not believe it even as it was happening to them. And unless they want to secede, they will need to pop the fictional bubble they have been so happily living inside, if they do not want to get shellacked again.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I believe that, although this may seem like a boon to many liberals, ultimately this is seriously damaging the country as a whole, not just to to the conservative parts/movement.
What, you mean having no real party choice in presidential elections, and having a congress where one party refuses to let anything get through if it would help them hurt the other party (and in the process becoming almost as unpopular as castro) is BAD for a country? what??
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: ]I would wager heavily that level of education directly correlates with how likely you are to have voted Obama.
So I'd actually agree with you, but perhaps not in the way you were hoping.
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Yeah, well. Arizona. South of the west. Can't be helped (yet)
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Dear Mr. & Mr. Koch.
You can not buy our Government.
Thanks for spending your money on the effort. It sure helped the economy somehow.
Cynically yours.
Ms. Liberty
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: . . . the absolute utter delusion that Sandy was equivalent mismanagement of a humanitarian concern — to what extent it is construed a mismanagement at all, most analysts said it was a prompt and sufficient response — is just .. it comes off as vile ignorance.
Maybe not vile. Certainly dangerous ignorance by people who never got over their president being correctly called to task for dire incompetence.
quote: America had an African-American president (something unthinkable in the 1980s), when Jesus returned. He was tall and thin, with close-cropped hair and large ears.
Maybe they meant Will Smith - hey, maybe he'll do a Ronald Regan. Or, actually, that describes a lot of people.
They certainly didn't mean the Rev. Jesse Jackson who found the idea of an African American president quite "thinkable" in the 1980s. Actually, African Americans have been running for president since Frederick Douglass and fairly consistently since the 1960s.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's why he cried, Dan. He cried in a way that continues to be an insulting attack.
If you and I are running a footrace, and I win, you are not losing gracefully if you immediately moan about how, having won, I am now going to force everyone to get cybernetic foot implants made out of unicorn bones.
I'm not sure what you're seeing that's "smug" about Sam's totally accurate observation that the right-wing is guilty of dangerous ignorance, though. Or JT's honest assessment of Romney's concession, which he felt contained in microcosm a problem he perceived in Romney as a candidate. You don't consider that kind of thing to be valid criticism? It seems to me that OSC was far, far more smug and presumptuous in defeat than any of us have been in victory, here.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm not sure what you're seeing that's "smug" about Sam's totally accurate observation that the right-wing is guilty of dangerous ignorance, though. Or JT's honest assessment of Romney's concession, which he felt contained in microcosm a problem he perceived in Romney as a candidate. You don't consider that kind of thing to be valid criticism? It seems to me that OSC was far, far more smug and presumptuous in defeat than any of us have been in victory, here.
I haven't posted in this thread at all. I've only read it. But Tom's comment seems to be fairly accurate to me.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your selected quotes from kmboots and xavier as ~evidence of smugness~ indicate to me that you are so peeved with this thread that you are having trouble distinguishing what a smug statement actually entails, you're just frustrated with this thread and you want to work in your frustration by calling this a circlejerk.
I mean, come on
quote:I was certain that, given the data, President Obama should win but with all the voting shenanigans going on in FL, OH, and PA I was still worried.
yeah, that's so smug. You can just see it oozing off of that quote.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It seems to me that OSC was far, far more smug and presumptuous in defeat than any of us have been in victory, here.
I'm starting here, because I totally agree with you. He was.
As far as I can tell, that doesn't change anything else that I said though.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Even if he shouldn't have cried...
It's why he cried, Dan. He cried in a way that continues to be an insulting attack.
If you and I are running a footrace, and I win, you are not losing gracefully if you immediately moan about how, having won, I am now going to force everyone to get cybernetic foot implants made out of unicorn bones.
Right.
There's a difference between pointing out that someone is being a poor loser, and calling that person insane, a child, delusional, etc.
That's the issue that I have with some of the reactions to OSC's article.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm not sure what you're seeing that's "smug" about Sam's totally accurate observation that the right-wing is guilty of dangerous ignorance, though. Or JT's honest assessment of Romney's concession, which he felt contained in microcosm a problem he perceived in Romney as a candidate. You don't consider that kind of thing to be valid criticism?
So... let's try this: I don't see what you think is smug about OSC's totally accurate observation that many mainstream media entities are guilty of dangerous bias.
First of all, you're asserting without argument that Sam's statements are correct. Fine. We disagree, but whatever. Setting that aside, there's also the matter of tone and delivery. Part of the problem of OSC's article isn't the content, it's the delivery. Sam delivered those comments with plenty of smugness. Do you really not see that?
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Your selected quotes from kmboots and xavier as ~evidence of smugness~ indicate to me that you are so peeved with this thread that you are having trouble distinguishing what a smug statement actually entails, you're just frustrated with this thread and you want to work in your frustration by calling this a circlejerk.
I mean, come on
quote:I was certain that, given the data, President Obama should win but with all the voting shenanigans going on in FL, OH, and PA I was still worried.
yeah, that's so smug. You can just see it oozing off of that quote.
Not all of them were smug. But it goes to the circle-jerk claim.
Smart people vote for Obama. Republicans are trying to steal the election. The implicit assumptions form such a complete bubble that the prospect of wading in was exhausting (which is the context of when I called the thread a circlejerk— I was saying I had been reluctant to enter the conversation until then).
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
more mormons voted for bush in 2004 than voted for romney in 2012
IMO that says more about what Mormons thought of Kerry than whether they liked Bush better than Romney, but I could be wrong.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Danfrank. Someday i want to write a really furious tirade that unjustly attacks people and makes absurd claims and then when people are dismayed and unapproving of my behavior have you describe me as just "crying" so its smug to attack me.
Woe is me, I'm just a little boy crying in the corner, and the MSM is literally Hitler hiding the truth and Obama is a murderer. Now if more than three people get angry at me its a CIRCLEJERK.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Danfrank. Someday i want to write a really furious tirade that unjustly attacks people and makes absurd claims and then when people are dismayed and unapproving of my behavior have you describe me as just "crying" so its smug to attack me.
Woe is me, I'm just a little boy crying in the corner, and the MSM is literally Hitler hiding the truth and Obama is a murderer. Now if more than three people get angry at me its a CIRCLEJERK.
Okay, fair enough!
It wasn't crying. It was, as you said, a tirade. Still, how does it help anything to attack him?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not all of them were smug. But it goes to the circle-jerk claim.
... no it doesn't. haha, no. not at all. wow.
it's kmbboots talking about what kmbboots honestly expected from the election. Cool, so people talking about their feelings up to and through the end of the election count as evidence of circlejerking now? And it really isn't even the worst misreading of tone either.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah I think I'm going to take exception here.
My post was in direct response to a post by Ron that heavily implied that the "wise" all voted for Romney. I responded with a turnabout of his claim that references the reality that education level is directly correlated with tendency to vote for Obama.
Now I don't have a graph to link* you or anything, but I think its a pretty safe claim to make. If you are disputing this, I would appreciate being corrected. Its my understanding that Romney did really well with uneducated whites, and that Obama did better with the well educated and with minorities.
Of course, Ron can say that education doesn't make you "wise". Which is a different discussion altogether.
But ignoring that my post was in response to someone making the exact inverse claim is pretty disingenuous.
*Best I found is this, which while supportive is hardly proof.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: First of all, you're asserting without argument that Sam's statements are correct. Fine. We disagree, but whatever.
I'm genuinely curious about this. Do you think Sam is wrong about the right-wing being ignorant of certain facts, or wrong that this ignorance is dangerous?
I do agree with you that there's a difference between calling someone a poor loser and calling someone delusional, by the way. When the point of the argument is that someone lost because they were delusional, however, and contains evidence of the delusions in questions and the harm done by those delusions, I'm not sure that you can call that "smug."
To go back to the footrace analogy: if OSC had lost because he stopped halfway, screamed, and ran away from ogres only he could see, it would not be "smug" of me when later assessing the race to note that his ogre-based delusion cost him dearly. This might be especially relevant if I have spent the last two years suffering from sunlight deprivation as he built higher and higher anti-ogre walls around our homes.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, that description in the email would be more impressive if that email was dated sometime in the 1990s, instead of 2009. Since it's dated 2009, it could have just have easily said "his name would be Barack Obama" and it would no more significant testimony of a prophecy.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now as for stealing the election...well. Given the total absence of any evidence for the sort of fraud voter ID laws would prevent, given the list of states they have been attempted in, and given the kinds of voters who are impacted most by such laws...well.
Either it's a case of separate groups coincidentally, simultaneously working towards laws which wouldn't solve the problem they claimed to be worried about (which didn't exist to begin with) but would inhibit the turnout of their opposition, or these things weren't so coincidental at all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Yeah I think I'm going to take exception here.
My post was in direct response to a post by Ron that heavily implied that the "wise" all voted for Romney. I responded with a turnabout of his claim that references the reality that education level is directly correlated with tendency to vote for Obama.
Now I don't have a graph to link* you or anything, but I think its a pretty safe claim to make. If you are disputing this, I would appreciate being corrected. Its my understanding that Romney did really well with uneducated whites, and that Obama did better with the well educated and with minorities.
Of course, Ron can say that education doesn't make you "wise". Which is a different discussion altogether.
But ignoring that my post was in response to someone making the exact inverse claim is pretty disingenuous.
*Best I found is this, which while supportive is hardly proof.
Sorry, I don't think I was being disingenuous, but regardless, I wasn't trying to be.
One thing to be clear about first: I hold you to a higher standard than Ron. So the fact that he was making the inverse claim isn't really relevant, because you still took the bait and implied the opposite.
I don't think Ron brought up education, you did in your response. "Education ≠ Wisdom" is not a different discussion at all, because you're the one who started by asserting that education was relevant to what he'd said.
Your implicit premises are: education = intelligence, and Obama voters = more intelligent. Whether or not "Obama voters = more educated" only matters insofar as we accept your premises.
Either way, though, it just struck me as a petty reverse dig... Ron says Obama voters are dumb, so you say No, Obama voters are smarter! Hah hah, you got him.
That's why I categorized it the way I did.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: First of all, you're asserting without argument that Sam's statements are correct. Fine. We disagree, but whatever.
I'm genuinely curious about this. Do you think Sam is wrong about the right-wing being ignorant of certain facts, or wrong that this ignorance is dangerous?
The Right Wing as a whole? The leadership of the Republican Party? The average Republican voter? What?
I think that most people are ignorant of "certain facts," many of which cause harm (so I'd say they are dangerous)... but I'm not sure what certain facts you're referring to.
In general I do disagree with Sam when he flogs the "Republicans are super extremist and super wrong and dysfunctional and will have to massively change before they ever win another election" horse.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In general I do disagree with Sam when he flogs the "Republicans are super extremist and super wrong and dysfunctional and will have to massively change before they ever win another election" horse.
You beat the crap out of that strawman, Dan.
You just punch that strawman down to the ground. Burn it, if it makes you feel better.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not all of them were smug. But it goes to the circle-jerk claim.
... no it doesn't. haha, no. not at all. wow.
it's kmbboots talking about what kmbboots honestly expected from the election. Cool, so people talking about their feelings up to and through the end of the election count as evidence of circlejerking now? And it really isn't even the worst misreading of tone either.
When people have controversial, highly disputed feelings, and they casually present them as if they are obviously correct without argument... yeah. I see that as evidence of a circlejerk.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In general I do disagree with Sam when he flogs the "Republicans are super extremist and super wrong and dysfunctional and will have to massively change before they ever win another election" horse.
You beat the crap out of that strawman, Dan.
You just punch that strawman down to the ground. Burn it, if it makes you feel better.
No! You can't make me.
I didn't think it was a strawman. If I did, I wouldn't have said it. In fact, I still can't see why it's a strawman.
You don't think the stuff I attributed to you? Awesome! I've been totally misreading you. Clue me in. What'd I miss?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: When people have controversial, highly disputed feelings, and they casually present them as if they are obviously correct without argument... yeah. I see that as evidence of a circlejerk.
I guess kmbboots internal certainty is Controversial and Highly Disputed. We should Highly Dispute the fact that kmbboots was worried about the election, because she can't just say she's worried about the election without argument.
If kmb's post is really your standard for circlejerky behavior, well, then pretty much any thread where people are standing around talking about anything you disagree with is a circlejerk.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I do agree with you that there's a difference between calling someone a poor loser and calling someone delusional, by the way. When the point of the argument is that someone lost because they were delusional, however, and contains evidence of the delusions in questions and the harm done by those delusions, I'm not sure that you can call that "smug."
To go back to the footrace analogy: if OSC had lost because he stopped halfway, screamed, and ran away from ogres only he could see, it would not be "smug" of me when later assessing the race to note that his ogre-based delusion cost him dearly. This might be especially relevant if I have spent the last two years suffering from aunlight deprivation as he built higher and higher anti-ogre walls around our homes.
Yeah, I think I see what you mean.
Well, I get the analogy, anyway.
I'm just not mapping it to OSC very well. Calling him childish and off the reservation and stuff doesn't seem like a constructive argument for why he's wrong. Ditto for all the sadface laments about how far he's fallen from the pedestal he used to be on in X person's mind.
I get the impulse to say stuff like that. They're flabbergasted that he disagrees with them so strongly. But those aren't cogent arguments, they're just mockery and... I don't even know what. People too saddened to engage in mockery.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: When people have controversial, highly disputed feelings, and they casually present them as if they are obviously correct without argument... yeah. I see that as evidence of a circlejerk.
I guess kmbboots internal certainty is Controversial and Highly Disputed. We should Highly Dispute the fact that kmbboots was worried about the election, because she can't just say she's worried about the election without argument.
If kmb's post is really your standard for circlejerky behavior, well, then pretty much any thread where people are standing around talking about anything you disagree with is a circlejerk.
"I'm worried the Jews will steal all of my money and then I'll be left out on the street."
Any conversation where that statement goes unchallenged is a circlejerk. Do you disagree?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: When people have controversial, highly disputed feelings, and they casually present them as if they are obviously correct without argument... yeah. I see that as evidence of a circlejerk.
I guess kmbboots internal certainty is Controversial and Highly Disputed. We should Highly Dispute the fact that kmbboots was worried about the election, because she can't just say she's worried about the election without argument.
If kmb's post is really your standard for circlejerky behavior, well, then pretty much any thread where people are standing around talking about anything you disagree with is a circlejerk.
I'm worried the Jews will steal all of my money and then I'll be left out on the street.
I better just not address this poster with my concerns over my feelings about that statement's plausibility for concern YET engage only in inferring it's part of a campaign of smug circlejerkiness and that dan is a smug circlejerker.
quote:Any conversation where that statement goes unchallenged is a circlejerk. Do you disagree?
...
come up with a Dan Frank Dictionary Definition of "circlejerk," please
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: "I'm worried the Jews will steal all of my money and then I'll be left out on the street."
That can be arranged.
Aw, Rivka, you don't have to steal to get my money. Just feed me some line about times being tough and your kids needing new shoes and I'll put myself out on the street.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: When people have controversial, highly disputed feelings, and they casually present them as if they are obviously correct without argument... yeah. I see that as evidence of a circlejerk.
I guess kmbboots internal certainty is Controversial and Highly Disputed. We should Highly Dispute the fact that kmbboots was worried about the election, because she can't just say she's worried about the election without argument.
If kmb's post is really your standard for circlejerky behavior, well, then pretty much any thread where people are standing around talking about anything you disagree with is a circlejerk.
"I'm worried the Jews will steal all of my money and then I'll be left out on the street."
Any conversation where that statement goes unchallenged is a circlejerk. Do you disagree?
Ok so if people are having a conversation about something where the facts are controversial by your standards oh its a circlejerk. Good thing you never addressed your own presumed controversial statements, or you would have ended the circlejerk and killed our smug.
Its like saying a discussion about a plate tectonic event is a circlejerk because everyone attending to the debate thinks the earth is millions of years old but a young-earther is there who doesnt believe this and he doesnt bring up his disagreement or offer his complaints he just reads the whole event as a bunch of smug irclejerkers
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am now away from my computer for the weekend. Would one of you be kind enough to link Dan to the data I was referencing (538 should do) and to to voting irregularities in OH, PA, and FL? Thanks.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: When people have controversial, highly disputed feelings, and they casually present them as if they are obviously correct without argument... yeah. I see that as evidence of a circlejerk.
I guess kmbboots internal certainty is Controversial and Highly Disputed. We should Highly Dispute the fact that kmbboots was worried about the election, because she can't just say she's worried about the election without argument.
If kmb's post is really your standard for circlejerky behavior, well, then pretty much any thread where people are standing around talking about anything you disagree with is a circlejerk.
I'm worried the Jews will steal all of my money and then I'll be left out on the street.
I better just not address this poster with my concerns over my feelings about that statement's plausibility for concern YET engage only in inferring it's part of a campaign of smug circlejerkiness and that dan is a smug circlejerker.
Usually I love following your wacky run on sentence antics but this one went over my head.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Any conversation where that statement goes unchallenged is a circlejerk. Do you disagree?
...
come up with a Dan Frank Dictionary Definition of "circlejerk," please
A discussion where people constantly agree and avoid argument. Generally don't have any conflict (or at least don't address any conflicts they might have). And generally pat each other on the back.
I can see how Kate's comment (and my example) lack specific back-patting, now that I think about it. Is that why you think I'm wrong? Or do you think my definition is bad? It's not really a dictionary term, it's pretty slangy, so maybe I'm used to seeing it used differently than you.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: When people have controversial, highly disputed feelings, and they casually present them as if they are obviously correct without argument... yeah. I see that as evidence of a circlejerk.
I guess kmbboots internal certainty is Controversial and Highly Disputed. We should Highly Dispute the fact that kmbboots was worried about the election, because she can't just say she's worried about the election without argument.
If kmb's post is really your standard for circlejerky behavior, well, then pretty much any thread where people are standing around talking about anything you disagree with is a circlejerk.
"I'm worried the Jews will steal all of my money and then I'll be left out on the street."
Any conversation where that statement goes unchallenged is a circlejerk. Do you disagree?
Ok so if people are having a conversation about something where the facts are controversial by your standards oh its a circlejerk. Good thing you never addressed your own presumed controversial statements, or you would have ended the circlejerk and killed our smug.
Its like saying a discussion about a plate tectonic event is a circlejerk because everyone attending to the debate thinks the earth is millions of years old but a young-earther is there who doesnt believe this and he doesnt bring up his disagreement or offer his complaints he just reads the whole event as a bunch of smug irclejerkers
Yeah, I think a young-earther would totally see a plate-tectonics conference as a huge circlejerk.
Do you think he wouldn't? Why not? Everyone's ignoring the elephant in the room and pretending the evidence is settled but its not because god says the world was created 4,000 years ago and obviously fossils were planted there by the devil and these idiots are just nattering on like none of this matters!
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Aw, Rivka, you don't have to steal to get my money. Just feed me some line about times being tough and your kids needing new shoes and I'll put myself out on the street.
They ALWAYS need new shoes. Rapidly growing teenagers!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Aw, Rivka, you don't have to steal to get my money. Just feed me some line about times being tough and your kids needing new shoes and I'll put myself out on the street.
They ALWAYS need new shoes. Rapidly growing teenagers!
Crap, she called my bluff! Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A discussion where people constantly agree and avoid argument.
Look at parks' example. Let's say we're all here discussing a plate tectonic event that just happened and among the discussion are a number of references to the geological age of the earth being more than a few thousand years. Under your definition, if all of the people discussing what happened "I felt some of the vibrations," and "we had some indication that this was coming" and "i was kind of worried we would get a tsunami" or even include scientific talk in accord with known facts about the event and there's no argument and everyone mostly agrees, congratulations, that's a circlejerk.
And then let's say a person who disagrees with plate tectonics is lurking and instead of presenting his own opinion or saying "you keep taking this whole geological age thing as a GIVEN but I would like to disagree that it is a given" and doesn't present anything at all to the conversation and instead just opts to just be peeved about it and write it all off as smug and circlejerky.
It's about as useless as both your definition and your actions, which disparage and traduce and write off other people's participation and tone needlessly via your own disagreement.
Wait, it's actually MORE useless, because instead of just not presenting at all, you just kind of hop in and make sure to make mention of how smug and circlejerky it is and how much it annoys you. Well after you had PLENTY of opportunity to take substantive umbrage with the established facts you disagree with. You managed the least useful, most annoying option, complete with some value judgments applied to other people's participation in the thread as part of it.
Or in the words of people who put everything in overly wrapped up pseudowise terms "it was never about the thread, it was about you"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But... I did argue. I argued with Destineer on one of the comments that absolutely would have made the "circlejerk list" above had I not already addressed it.
And the only context in which I even said the word "circlejerk" was right then, when I brought up the example of circklejerkiness that I was (at that time) willing to start an argument on.
I also referred to other stuff in the thread as a circlejerk, which I meant to be shorthand for:
1) I disagreed with other things that were being said but I didn't have the energy to pick any other arguments out at that time.
2) Not the least because, unlike the comment Destineer had made, I didn't really anticipate a fruitful discussion arising out of them.
3) More importantly, it was right after the election, you guys had won, and I thought it would be petty and annoying to pick a bunch of little fights over stuff that wouldn't go anywhere. Why bring people down like that?
Hell, I didn't even say it annoyed me! I said you were welcome to it! I meant that sincerely.
I'm really not getting your point here, I think.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, I'd just like to say that I while I largely disagree with you that this thread was a circle jerk, you've been patient, provided examples of what you consider example of the smugness, and still crack jokes at genuinely funny things throughout this. If more people (both conservative and liberal) took a similar approach as you, I think there'd be a lot less demonizing the other side. I just wanted to say thanks. Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
" A discussion where people constantly agree and avoid argument. Generally don't have any conflict (or at least don't address any conflicts they might have). And generally pat each other on the back."
So we currently agreed with, avoided argument with, and pat Ron on the back, ...
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
