DescentBB

good points, and I laughed at the last line.

callmeslick wrote:good points, and I laughed at the last line.

A quick look at who are the more prolific thread starters in this forum and at the content of those threads and I wonder what you mean by "good points"?

Hate is good…as long as you only hate the people you think do all of the hating.

Spidey wrote:Hate is good…as long as you only hate the people you think do all of the hating.

Yourself excluded, of course.

Of course.

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:good points, and I laughed at the last line.

A quick look at who are the more prolific thread starters in this forum and at the content of those threads and I wonder what you mean by "good points"?

your wonderment doesn't surprise me a bit.

If you think the article had good points, start living them. If you think your fellow E&C posters need to live up to a higher standard, start living up to one yourself. Don't just read the article and then keep being ridiculous to each other. Take it to heart.

Lothar wrote:If you think the article had good points, start living them. If you think your fellow E&C posters need to live up to a higher standard, start living up to one yourself. Don't just read the article and then keep being ridiculous to each other. Take it to heart.

pointing out the shortcomings of political philosophies is NOT hating, Lothar. Hell, debate over such things is part and parcel of what the nation is predicated on. Knee-jerk hatred due to party or worse, tags like 'liberal' or 'conservative' is wrong. The writer, to my mind, did make good points, and while I chose in the first response not to nit-pick, to my mind he veers into suggesting NO political debate, which I don't think was intended to sound that way. The parts I was specifically noting as good points included words:like this:

"Political discourse has always had a shadowy component, all the way back to Thomas Paine’s pamphleteering in favor of American independence. But nothing has empowered casual vitriol in the Internet age like the pressure on news organizations to publish any and all anonymous feedback."


and, while I've been guilty of losing self-control and giving in to cheap vitriol at times, most of the time I work consciously to focus on the words, thoughts and theories being expounded upon. I honestly can say I hold no hate toward anyone on here, and while I have puzzlement for folks who support people whose very philosophy runs counter to their interests, they have that right. I do spend a fair bit of time on here dispelling the exact sort of commonplace misinformation and blind hate directed towards folks I respect that the author decries, and couldn't care less about whether I get a rise from others doing so(the definition of trolling). Further, it is my contention that SERIOUS political discourse, sans vitriol and focused on IDEAS is vitally needed in the US. Key matters around the role of the US in the world, the role of government, the extent of Federal powers, and long-term economic planning sorely need to be front burner ideas that ALL Americans need to think about. Elections and politics are part of that discourse, and a nation in which less than 1/3 of the populace gets involved is doomed. The downside of this author's view is the overall tone which almost EXCUSES people for opting out of politics, and in a political system that utterly depends on citizen involvement to remain functional, that is not good.

Since we pretty much know most of each other, even though we've not met face to face, we're not "hating". We're only "debating" here.

Most of the most malicious internet trolling is done between strangers, and most of those are Millennials.

https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/10/2 ... line-comm/

tunnelcat wrote:Since we pretty much know most of each other, even though we've not met face to face, we're not "hating". We're only "debating" here.

Most of the most malicious internet trolling is done between strangers, and most of those are Millennials.

https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/10/2 ... line-comm/

as one who has written(in my real name) on several political blogs, I agree with you, by and large. One need only read the comments section in those pages, or in news organization pages, to realize that E and C is pretty damned tame.

callmeslick wrote:pointing out the shortcomings of political philosophies is NOT hating...

Right. Nobody is saying "don't criticize".

I honestly can say I hold no hate toward anyone on here.... it is my contention that SERIOUS political discourse, sans vitriol and focused on IDEAS is vitally needed in the US

Do you think you hold to that standard the vast majority of the time? Do you discuss ideas, without the sort of "cold hate" mentioned in the article -- the "indications of contempt, such as sarcasm, sneering and hostile humor"?

I contend, without getting into specifics, that you could do a lot better (though this is, as you say, better than the comment section on many blogs.) And so could the majority of people here. Maybe a little less "of course YOU would think that" and less picking on the weakest statement, and more "I disagree with your approach, though I would find it less disagreeable if you took this similar approach" and "this part of your argument is good, but you need to support this other part". Less dehumanizing the people on the other side, and more exchange of ideas.

Lothar wrote:

callmeslick wrote:pointing out the shortcomings of political philosophies is NOT hating...

Right. Nobody is saying "don't criticize".

I honestly can say I hold no hate toward anyone on here.... it is my contention that SERIOUS political discourse, sans vitriol and focused on IDEAS is vitally needed in the US

Do you think you hold to that standard the vast majority of the time? Do you discuss ideas, without the sort of "cold hate" mentioned in the article -- the "indications of contempt, such as sarcasm, sneering and hostile humor"?

I contend, without getting into specifics, that you could do a lot better (though this is, as you say, better than the comment section on many blogs.) And so could the majority of people here. Maybe a little less "of course YOU would think that" and less picking on the weakest statement, and more "I disagree with your approach, though I would find it less disagreeable if you took this similar approach" and "this part of your argument is good, but you need to support this other part". Less dehumanizing the people on the other side, and more exchange of ideas.

regarding sarcasm and "hostile humor", I think the entire community that makes up the dbb, both old members and new, are guilty of that.

I just noticed just on the first page of the E&C thread listings that there are 3 locked threads, all closed due to personal attacks or trash talk. Tsk, tsk.

and countless other threads that stayed open after personal attacks were deleted.

I thought the article was vapid.

Whether or not we want to admit it, political hate is a demand-driven phenomenon. We are the ones creating a big market for it.

Do I get to hate my fellow citizens?

Millions of Americans dislike it, but should we care about its effects?

Should've used "hate" instead of "dislike."

Lothar wrote:Do you think you hold to that standard the vast majority of the time? Do you discuss ideas, without the sort of "cold hate" mentioned in the article -- the "indications of contempt, such as sarcasm, sneering and hostile humor"?

yes. Like I said, I sometimes get caught up in the more hostile back and forths, but my intent is generally to generate discussion of issues and ideas. Humor is part of my makeup, and yes, that can mean a bit of sarcasm. As was suggested by TC, the author is speaking to the absolute screaming on the larger web sites, and as noted, this place(me included) is pretty tame.

I contend, without getting into specifics, that you could do a lot better (though this is, as you say, better than the comment section on many blogs.) And so could the majority of people here. Maybe a little less "of course YOU would think that" and less picking on the weakest statement, and more "I disagree with your approach, though I would find it less disagreeable if you took this similar approach" and "this part of your argument is good, but you need to support this other part". Less dehumanizing the people on the other side, and more exchange of ideas.

well, you're entitled to your opinion, and if you find me that way in response to reasoned arguments, I'll do some self-reflection.
I think the larger issue, FAR past this place, is the overall nature of political discourse. That is something I've often tried to address here. That problem is complex, and somewhat cyclical. What I'm getting at is this: 24 news organizations and radio 'news' talk feed the hyperbole, aiming to sell air time and grow the audience. The audience, in turn, goes into a hateful feeding frenzy in the larger world, and(most dangerous of all), they tend to elect representatives who are equally averse to civilized discussion. I'm old enough to remember when members of Congress could debate, vigorously, and then go out for drinks and dinner together. I clearly remember(not very long ago) when a dinner invite from the President was a MANDATORY matter of attendance, no matter what ones political party or ideology was. Look at what passes for Congressional representation now. It isn't far fetched, or likely far off, when that boorish lack of civility extends to the occupant of the White House, as well, although to date that hasn't occurred. And, as this cycle tends to feed on itself and accelerate, we have, truly, descended into the problem Jefferson outlined in 1802.

cue krom with the competing hatememes video...

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:good points, and I laughed at the last line.

A quick look at who are the more prolific thread starters in this forum and at the content of those threads and I wonder what you mean by "good points"?

your wonderment doesn't surprise me a bit.

and back to the OP, you throw any sense of discussion right out the door with a character attack *CLAP CLAP*

ya I havent posted on this forum for 2 months just for the reason of the OP.

IMHO this whole forum should be discarded. There is minimal actual debate here. No one wants to listen to an opposing point of view. And why should you? You'll just be called a "hater" or worse

CUDA wrote:and back to the OP, you throw any sense of discussion right out the door with a character attack *CLAP CLAP*

ya I havent posted on this forum for 2 months just for the reason of the OP.

IMHO this whole forum should be discarded. There is minimal actual debate here. No one wants to listen to an opposing point of view. And why should you? You'll just be called a "hater" or worse

You're being a little harsh. Most of us here have other things to do day after day, as well as you. Most of us come here with precious little time to actually research some topic that's been started up usually on someone's whim or news of the day. This arena isn't really a place for intelligent debate, nor should it be expected to be, because in order to HAVE an intelligent debate, research and time needs to be spent to support and defend one's side of any position. Most people either don't have the time, the fortitude, don't care, or don't want to change their preconceived notions in the first place. They argue for argument's sake just to rile people up.

This forum is mostly a place for social discourse between people who have some common interest, in this case the game Descent, and have never met face to face. Since most topics are either political or morality based, you're never going to have an intelligent or reasoned debate because most people have their minds already made up and set. You're going to get arguments most of the time based on emotional reactions, not logic or reason. If that rubs your fur the wrong way, then your missing the whole point. Even though we snark at each other and get a little heated, and personal at times, most of us come back for more just because of the social interaction and entertainment value.

the irony of some of us having a soul searching moment, while another member posts 'Obama's ONLY legacy' or some such in another thread is not lost on me, either.

CUDA wrote:And back to the OP, you throw any sense of discussion right out the door with a character attack *CLAP CLAP*

actually, I deflected an attempted character attack with dry humor, and you should be able to see the difference. I addressed the issue seriously with those willing to do so.

ya I havent posted on this forum for 2 months just for the reason of the OP.

what I'd like to know is whether it really is that, or that the overall ideological balance has shifted, ever so slightly, to the left. As far as I can see(and I've only been on here for 4 years or so) there has been no real change in the tone or nature of responses over that time. Some folks tend to go right to the hate, others try and have discussions. One can, as I noted above, dismiss those involved in personal attacks and focus on the serious players. No need to go absent. Now, you and I both have experience with a forum that saw a mass hissy-fit precisely because the mix became less conservative. I'm not sure, but it seems in that situation that the haters are the ones who run away rather that engage in discussion.

IMHO this whole forum should be discarded. There is minimal actual debate here. No one wants to listen to an opposing point of view. And why should you? You'll just be called a "hater" or worse

speak for yourself, I'd disagree, on all respects.

Slick, you can try to take the high road and portray my questioning your sincerity in the light of that article as an 'attack' but you are the guy trying to equate posting Christies baseball uniform picture as some kind of genuine debate.

You very often post topics that have ridicule-the-conservative as the only goal. Now you want to say you don't attack character and instead you are the one who avoids that aspect and offers intelligent debate.

You are the ThunderBunny of the left in here.

Will Robinson wrote:Slick, you can try to take the high road and portray my questioning your sincerity in the light of that article as an 'attack' but you are the guy trying to equate posting Christies baseball uniform picture as some kind of genuine debate.

ummm, my point was about campaign tactics, nothing more. I actually respect(as I noted in responses) Christie in some regard, due to honesty about his policies. My entire point in that post was that his publicist made a terrible decision, that hurts any chance of getting his message out. Sorry you missed that point.

You very often post topics that have ridicule-the-conservative as the only goal.

sorry, but that isn't hate, when I am pointing out a weak ideology.I do, at times, comment upon CAMPAIGN TACTICS, because I am at heart a political wonk and always have been. Me assailing tactics(which I've done with Hillary Clinton a few times recently)has nothing to do with either hate, or limited discussion. I have never closed off intelligent back and forth. EVER.

Now you want to say you don't attack character and instead you are the one who avoids that aspect and offers intelligent debate.

yup, I have tried. That others wish to take a thread down the wormhole of knee-jerk, right v left stuff is their choice. As noted, I've too often allowed myself to run with it when they do so. I'm human, so be it.

You are the ThunderBunny of the left in here.

if you can make THAT equation, I think you might be part of the problem.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Slick, you can try to take the high road and portray my questioning your sincerity in the light of that article as an 'attack' but you are the guy trying to equate posting Christies baseball uniform picture as some kind of genuine debate.

ummm, my point was about campaign tactics, nothing more. I actually respect(as I noted in responses) Christie in some regard, due to honesty about his policies. My entire point in that post was that his publicist made a terrible decision, that hurts any chance of getting his message out. Sorry you missed that point.

I didn't miss 'the point'....I saw it and knew it to be your plausible deniability for another of your schadenfreude moments. Your attempt now to hide behind 'the point' affirms my questioning your motives was well founded.

Yea…why do I get the distinct impression Christie’s publicist was out of the loop when that particular image was chosen.

callmeslick wrote:

You'll just be called a "hater" or worse

speak for yourself, I'd disagree, on all respects.

callmeslick wrote:the haters

YA Nuf said. in the same post even

your so blinded by your own self worth that you cannot even see that you are what you despise most.

and I stopped posting for exactly what why I said. personally... I don't give a ★■◆● if you believe it or not, in just your second post on this thread you went right to a personal attack, then you try to defend yourself with the lame excuse of

actually, I deflected an attempted character attack with dry humor

Good Lord man Grow a pair of balls and at least be man enough to admit you made the attack. do you REALLY expect us to buy that lame piece of BS??

OP wrote:Cool hate can be every bit as damaging as hot hate. The social psychologist and relationship expert John Gottman was famously able to predict with up to 94 percent accuracy whether couples would divorce just by observing a brief snippet of conversation. The biggest warning signs of all were indications of contempt, such as sarcasm, sneering and hostile humor.

So since you agreed with the articles points. then you Must be one of those haters that you seem to like to criticize so often

pointing out the shortcomings of political philosophies is NOT hating

yet when we do this about the president or any other democrat you seem to wish to change the rules of the game and go right to the HATE card. funny how you cannot live up to your own standards huh. It must be rough for you.

So I'm going to point right back to Lothars post that he directed at you.

If you think the article had good points, start living them. If you think your fellow E&C posters need to live up to a higher standard, start living up to one yourself. Don't just read the article and then keep being ridiculous to each other. Take it to heart.

and now I'll go right back to my hibernation. It helps keep my BP lower.

Good to see you Again TC, while I might not agree with your stances on a lot of issues. at least you're an honest Liberal, Have a good day. been a beautiful summer in the Valley hasn't it

CUDA wrote:...

pointing out the shortcomings of political philosophies is NOT hating

yet when we do this about the president or any other democrat you seem to wish to change the rules of the game and go right to the HATE card. funny how you cannot live up to your own standards huh. It must be rough for you.

So I'm going to point right back to Lothars post that he directed at you.

If you think the article had good points, start living them. If you think your fellow E&C posters need to live up to a higher standard, start living up to one yourself. Don't just read the article and then keep being ridiculous to each other. Take it to heart.

...

Just as an aside since Lothar probably doesn't want to wade into our crap to micro manage this point, I think Lothar was pointing some part of that at me as well as slick.
I just don't have the patience anymore to offer good faith towards someone I see as purposefully dishonest and he wraps it in such arrogance. I resolved myself to work with it as it is....as an illustration of sorts.
I think I'm done though.

It's been interesting and entertaining at times. Happy trails to all.

Oh I'm sure he was pointing it out to all of us.

CUDA,
As I pointed out in my elaboration, I felt the article had some good points. That is NOT the same as accepting it verbatim, and I also went to some length to point out where I disagreed. At least it was a serious article, discussing a real issue. Sad that doing so has folks so worked up that they start with the name calling, etc. Once again, irony, on the same level one sees regularly.

I had hoped this thread would evoke some good discussion about the way dialogue happens here in E&C, rather than devolving into back and forth shots...

...it appears that hope was misguided. I'll leave this thread, for the value of the original post, in contrast to what followed.