Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-18-2017, 04:19 PM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 24,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
Please provide some examples.
If you'd bothered to check the links I provided, you would have seen that I have already done so.
I did when you first posted those links in the OP and I did again today. I don't agree that your examples show "the hatred and desperation of Dopers to pin fault - any fault - on Trump".
Advertisements  
  #102  
Old 02-18-2017, 05:26 PM
DSeid DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 19,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Do you remember the thread(s?) about liberal hypocrisy and how the lefties told us that pointing out that hypocrisy is not a valid argument and adds nothing to the discussion?
So meta. A post complaining about the alleged hypocrisy of complaining about hypocrisy ...

Makes me head spin.


You have your needed trigger warnings in the thread titles. Agreed that Cafe Society and MPSIMS should be available to you as safe spaces. And threads that are not Trump related should not contain gratuitous drive-by comments.


But this board's brand is "Fighting Ignorance" and no matter what your political stripe Trump advocates ignorance as a desired state. He functions with a disregard to actual facts. We attract people who have a love for actual facts ... the straight dope ... they will be calling out bullshit when it occurs and occurs it does in relation to Trump with more regularity than my toilet habits but more stink.
  #103  
Old 02-18-2017, 07:48 PM
TBG TBG is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 8,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
But this board's brand is "Fighting Ignorance"
*snip*

And the best way to do that is to call people nazis and white supremacists just for not agreeing with you politically, right? Wrong. That's spreading ignorance. There are no actual nazis or white supremacists in the Trump administration, no matter how many times someone uses such slurs.
  #104  
Old 02-18-2017, 08:30 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBG View Post
*snip*

And the best way to do that is to call people nazis and white supremacists just for not agreeing with you politically, right? Wrong. That's spreading ignorance. There are no actual nazis or white supremacists in the Trump administration, no matter how many times someone uses such slurs.
What about Steve Bannon?

Seriously. Both Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries have publicly called Bannon a white supremacist. So has former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro:

Quote:
There is no ambiguity about which commenters Brannon was referencing. He bragged to Mother Jones at the Republican National Convention in August that Breitbart was “the platform for the alt-right.” And the “alt-right” loves Bannon back. Former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro said that “Breitbart has become the alt-right go-to website, with [editor Milo] Yiannopoulos pushing white ethno-nationalism as a legitimate response to political correctness, and the comment section turning into a cesspool for white supremacist mememakers” (emphasis added). Beyond Yiannopoulos, Breitbart has also hired white nationalists as reporters. Shapiro said the “alt-right” is “shot through with racism and anti-Semitism” and explained the connection with Breitbart at length...
Shapiro goes on at length to talk about the anti-semitic ravings of Bannon's hires. The alt-right may not be literal Swatzika-wearing Nazi party members, but it's hardly a metaphorical stretch to link this talk with historical precedence.

I find the evidence that Steve Bannon is a white supremacist to be overwhelming and convincing. So how is acknowledging that spreading ignorance? How is denying that anything other than not facing up to an unpleasant truth, or worse? Why should anyone believe that he is not once again hiring associates of similar ilk?

I can obviously see why you don't want people putting these truths out in public, but we're not exactly the ones at fault here. Maybe you should redirect your ire to the proper targets.
  #105  
Old 02-18-2017, 10:28 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
What about Steve Bannon?

Seriously. Both Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries have publicly called Bannon a white supremacist. So has former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro:
Ah, well, then. Nancy Pelosi said so. It must be true. Don't you see how unreasonable that position is?
  #106  
Old 02-18-2017, 10:45 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Ah, well, then. Nancy Pelosi said so. It must be true. Don't you see how unreasonable that position is?
It is reasonable as it is clear that she has read about what others reported about what is driving Bannon:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/27/u...=tw-share&_r=0
Quote:
But if his scathing economic analysis sometimes seemed to dabble in Marxism, on other subjects, including race and religion, he made no concessions to political sensitivities. After Mr. Bannon met Mr. Breitbart at the 2004 screening of “In the Face of Evil,” the two men hit it off, bonding over their similar views and a common irreverent streak.

Ms. Jones, the film colleague, said that in their years working together, Mr. Bannon occasionally talked about the genetic superiority of some people and once mused about the desirability of limiting the vote to property owners.

“I said, ‘That would exclude a lot of African-Americans,’” Ms. Jones recalled. “He said, ‘Maybe that’s not such a bad thing.’
He might had gotten better, but as pointed before the clear pandering to racists and neo Nazis at Breitbart does not give one much confidence on that.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-18-2017 at 10:49 PM.
  #107  
Old 02-18-2017, 10:54 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
It is reasonable as it is clear that she has read about what others reported about what is driving Bannon:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/27/u...=tw-share&_r=0

It's also "been reported" that the moon landings were faked. And?
  #108  
Old 02-18-2017, 10:59 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
It's also "been reported" that the moon landings were faked. And?
There is more evidence then of what Pelosy reported than in a single minute from Fox's moon hoax show that revived that dumb conspiracy.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-18-2017 at 10:59 PM.
  #109  
Old 02-19-2017, 09:27 AM
DSeid DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 19,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBG View Post
*snip*

And the best way to do that is to call people nazis and white supremacists just for not agreeing with you politically, right? Wrong. That's spreading ignorance. There are no actual nazis or white supremacists in the Trump administration, no matter how many times someone uses such slurs.
Let's leave aside whether or not Bannon embraces white supremacist thought and the trawling of those sorts of websites for material during the campaign and Trump's fascist stylings, all in fact reasonable things to discuss, and not calling people that "for disagreeing with me" ... seriously ... THAT is not what the OP was complaining about nor what I see very much of. The "examples" in the op? Did not contain any of that that I could see. A question as to whether or not Trump may have a reading disability, a discussion about the going into a high-security meeting regarding North Korean nuclear tests in full public view at Mar-a-Lago to the degree that members of the public were taking pictures with what was believed to be the nuclear football, a thread in which the op supported Trump's wanting to demand NATO pay more, and a thread wondering if the current divide in the country will devolve into civil war. Admittedly I just skimmed them but no calling other disagreeing posters or member of Trump's administration Nazis or White supremacists in the batch that I saw.

So what the fuck are you talking about?

In point of fact if someone did call other posters those things outside the Pit I would expect it to be modded.

If the threads were all "How does Trump tie his shoes? In little Nazis." and "How much Führther will Trump go?" and "Who would win a race between all of our modern era's president's? Trump. He's the fascist." then sure you'd have a point.

Discussing a major proposed shift in the relationship with NATO? The recklessness of holding a high security meeting in public view? Asking about Trumps' apparent reading disability? Riffing on how far our political divide will take us? These, and pointing out all the times he says things that are simply not true, and proposes things that many of us believe are against our country's core values let alone our best interests, are not unreasonable discussions and mostly (but not completely) intelligent discussion (with sides of humor and snark, and cynicism and skepticism) about subjects of interest, as these are, is the SD brand.
  #110  
Old 02-19-2017, 10:35 AM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Ah, well, then. Nancy Pelosi said so. It must be true. Don't you see how unreasonable that position is?
What happens if you substitute Trump for Pelosi in that sentence?

It's obviously not an illegitimate comment for posters on either side to quote leaders of their respective parties. It's the duty of posters to evaluate comments and separate the reasonable from the unreasonable and outright lies, true. But as I said, I evaluated this comment and found it to be accurate. If you're dismissing all truths said about your side ad hominem then you having nothing to contribute outside the Pit.

You've written yourself out of existence. Your posts of this kind do diminish the Straight Dope brand. Quartz had it exactly backward in his OP.
  #111  
Old 02-19-2017, 11:48 AM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
What happens if you substitute Trump for Pelosi in that sentence?
IMO, reasonable posters take whatever is said by "leaders" of whatever political party with a huge grain of salt. Quoting the opinion of Mrs. Pelosi or Mr. Trump is an example of argumentum ad verecundiam.
  #112  
Old 02-19-2017, 11:57 AM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
IMO, reasonable posters take whatever is said by "leaders" of whatever political party with a huge grain of salt. Quoting the opinion of Mrs. Pelosi or Mr. Trump is an example of argumentum ad verecundiam.
And cherry-picking one sentence from a post while ignoring linked citation of further analysis is doing what?

Your complaint is noted and dismissed for cause.

Last edited by tomndebb; 02-19-2017 at 11:57 AM.
  #113  
Old 02-19-2017, 12:04 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 29,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
IMO, reasonable posters take whatever is said by "leaders" of whatever political party with a huge grain of salt. Quoting the opinion of Mrs. Pelosi or Mr. Trump is an example of argumentum ad verecundiam.
But of course I did no such thing. I did my own research and supplied an authoritative cite by a former Breitbart employee.

I hope that in the future you will do similar research and check the truth of any words coming out of Trump's mouth or those of his surrogates before quoting them approvingly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
After more than eight years, you're still clinging to that hope and change nonsense?
That tidbit from "So what is the womens' march supposed to accomplish?" thread tells me what to expect from hope.
  #114  
Old 02-19-2017, 04:01 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 34,790
Finally - a thread where we can talk about Trump without being distracted by a lot of nonsense about this message board.

Regards,
Shodan
  #115  
Old 02-19-2017, 04:30 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
And cherry-picking one sentence from a post while ignoring linked citation of further analysis is doing what?

Political "analysis" is, by definition, opinion, not factual. One cannot (or at least shouldn't) attempt to "cite" opinions as if they were facts.
  #116  
Old 02-19-2017, 04:53 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
So meta. A post complaining about the alleged hypocrisy of complaining about hypocrisy ...

Makes me head spin.
Not sure how to interpret your post. Just a drive by comment on my part that the liberals hate about call-outs to "Obama did ..." yet we have a post (from a mod, not sure how to take that) doing the exact same thing.

So a post about hypocrisy criticizining hypocrisy ... it's turtles all the way down.
  #117  
Old 02-20-2017, 03:34 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 66,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti View Post
Rasmussen called itself the most accurate pollster of 2016 and the record backs it up. ( The Hill). I think I'll take their results rather than Gallup's if you don't mind.
The record "backs it up" if you look at the single narrow number that Rasmussen cites to support their claim (the final spread). But if you look at the overall figures, the closest pollster was.... Fox News. They were within 1 point on all four candidates, except Trump who they were 1.9% off on. Rasmussen was three points off on both major candidates, apparently because they had a higher share of undecided/other voters.
  #118  
Old 03-02-2017, 12:52 AM
Guest-starring: Id! Guest-starring: Id! is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,049
Micheal and Lindsay Bluth finally do it.

Then soon tie the knot.
  #119  
Old 03-02-2017, 08:23 AM
Clothahump Clothahump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 13,804
Are all the Trump threads diminishing the Straight Dope Brand?


Let's be realistic. SDMB has been a continuous train wreck for many, many years. The Trump posts are simply a few more cars going off the track. SDMB used to be a place with clever, witty writers that were a pleasure to read. They're all gone.

And it's sad. This board used to have such potential. Now....we are just watching it circle the drain. Eventually, it will die and we will raise a glass in memory of what it tried to be.
  #120  
Old 03-02-2017, 08:40 AM
aldiboronti aldiboronti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 7,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
The record "backs it up" if you look at the single narrow number that Rasmussen cites to support their claim (the final spread). But if you look at the overall figures, the closest pollster was.... Fox News. They were within 1 point on all four candidates, except Trump who they were 1.9% off on. Rasmussen was three points off on both major candidates, apparently because they had a higher share of undecided/other voters.
Point taken and it's a good one.

By the way this thread is starting to look like a Trump thread itself. It certainly seems to have left ATMB territory long ago.
  #121  
Old 03-02-2017, 09:16 AM
Guest-starring: Id! Guest-starring: Id! is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,049
fuck

OOOOOPS.

yeah I'll try to keep this 'correct thread' shit a bit more sorted out in the future.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Clothahump View Post
Are all the Trump threads diminishing the Straight Dope Brand?


Let's be realistic. SDMB has been a continuous train wreck for many, many years. The Trump posts are simply a few more cars going off the track. SDMB used to be a place with clever, witty writers that were a pleasure to read. They're all gone.

And it's sad. This board used to have such potential. Now....we are just watching it circle the drain. Eventually, it will die and we will raise a glass in memory of what it tried to be.
Oh - hi!
So - which clever, witty writers, then? Anyway glad to see you back to restore the board's potential to keep it from going the down the drain, then.
  #122  
Old 03-02-2017, 01:22 PM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 18,561
Clothahump is a hair clog of hope for our survival.
  #123  
Old 03-02-2017, 02:36 PM
Calatin Calatin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clothahump View Post
Are all the Trump threads diminishing the Straight Dope Brand?


Let's be realistic. SDMB has been a continuous train wreck for many, many years. The Trump posts are simply a few more cars going off the track. SDMB used to be a place with clever, witty writers that were a pleasure to read. They're all gone.

And it's sad. This board used to have such potential. Now....we are just watching it circle the drain. Eventually, it will die and we will raise a glass in memory of what it tried to be.
Honest question: If you think the board is circling the drain, why are you still here? You seem to express the belief that there's no coming back from this decline, but in posting, you're just keeping it alive.
  #124  
Old 03-02-2017, 06:30 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 55,743
I'm willing to entertain the remote possibility that every other message board in the world has a restraining order against him.
  #125  
Old 03-02-2017, 07:18 PM
River Hippie River Hippie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: N.E. Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,820
"A casual visitor might well look at the Dope and decry us as bigoted moonbats."

Or...think "Thank God, an island of sanity in an ocean of derp."
  #126  
Old 03-02-2017, 07:23 PM
CatandMouse CatandMouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 334
The anti Trump threads are the reason I joined.
  #127  
Old 03-02-2017, 08:45 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 55,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatandMouse View Post
The anti Trump threads are the reason I joined.
Welcome aboard, rational person.
  #128  
Old 03-02-2017, 08:48 PM
CatandMouse CatandMouse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Welcome aboard, rational person.

Thank you!
  #129  
Old 03-02-2017, 11:06 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Political "analysis" is, by definition, opinion, not factual. One cannot (or at least shouldn't) attempt to "cite" opinions as if they were facts.
Your moving the goalposts out to the parking lot are further noted.

You tried to dismiss a statement by attacking the fact that one legislator had been quoted in that statement. You ignored the point that that legislator was not the only source for that opinion (in other words, you engaged in cherry picking), and you ignored evidence provided by a linked article that quoted both Bannon and his co-workers at his media outlet promoting white nationalist rhetoric (making your attack on the Pelosi reference irrelevant).

Doubling down on your irrelevant original point is silly.
  #130  
Old 03-03-2017, 02:31 AM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 27,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Here is what I hope turns out to be an ATMB-appropriate post:

Where on this Message Board will I find a thread about Chex cereal that brings up Donald Trump? Would someone be good enough to link to it?

TIA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Just start a thread about Chex cereal and someone will bring up Trump sooner or later.
Uhh, hard pass, thanks. Chex cereals are delicious, and I wouldn't want my thread about them to be befouled by discussion of that fuckstick. It could give me unwelcome mental associations, and kill my appetite for them.
  #131  
Old 03-03-2017, 04:46 AM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 55,743
I used to love kittens, until I started a thread about them....
  #132  
Old 03-04-2017, 08:46 PM
Projammer Projammer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW Arkansas
Posts: 5,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
What would the OP have us do? Have no threads about Trump? Have a quota for Trump-related threads? And I'd like to see some backup for the idea that the Trump threads are "unwarranted attacks" on him.
I came into ATMB to suggest creating a sub-forum off the Pit for all the Trump threads there. Maybe call it the Trump Dump or something. That way everyone that wants to start up their own Trump is a twit thread has a place to play and the rest of us who have heard enough don't have to slog through it to find something relevant.
  #133  
Old 03-05-2017, 10:29 AM
Clothahump Clothahump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 13,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie The Horrible View Post

Oh - hi!
So - which clever, witty writers, then? Anyway glad to see you back to restore the board's potential to keep it from going the down the drain, then.
Thank you. As far as the writers, we have numerous who are either no longer here or don't post very much. There have been a bunch of "recap" threads over the years. This is just one of them; when you read some of the threads, you'll bust a gut. You just don't see stuff like that any more.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017