A serious question for Sam Stone on Factual Errors

[Sam_Stone]

@JohnT

This is performative whining. Since you asked and all.

Or a fact. (-:

Actually, it’s an exaggeration. The first fifteen years or so resulted in me getting pitted maybe once or twice. Since then, the level of anger has gone through the roof here, just as it has everywhere else.

But it is true that I, and the other right-wing members of the SDMB are a small minority and face a lot of intolerance for our points of view. Just look how many pittings of right-wing people there are compared to the left, despite them being a small minority. Or more accurately, because they are a small minority.

[JohnT]

Dude, the victimization is embarrassing. Stop it.

You choose to come here, Sam. You choose to make the arguments you make. You choose to ignore the arguments you want to ignore. We all do this.

But only you refuse to admit that you do this. “Look at what you guys made me do” is a cheap, abusers argument.

In short: Be a man.

[Great_Antibob]

There are those who have the courage of their convictions

Then there are those who have the conviction their courage exists, despite all evidence to the contrary

[k9bfriender]

It’s interesting how that works out. He’s listening to ideas that are abhorrent, and strangely, all those people spouting those ideas hate him.

Could it be perspective, that the people saying things that he finds abhorrent, he also thinks hate him. Maybe it’s the fact that he hates those people that he thinks the feeling is mutual? That’s why he feels no reservation about lying and misrepresenting others.

Now, I’ve found myself in disagreement with the “hive” before. There are a number of subjects where my personal opinions do not match the approved collective 'round here. And it is a bit intimidating, having half a dozen people all telling you that you are wrong, demanding cites and explanations, as well as at least some of them “misunderstanding” what you said in the worst possible light.

But I don’t think they hate me, and unlike Sam, I don’t hate them for having a different opinion than I, nor even for expressing that different opinion.

If I had as thin a skin as Sam, I’d be all whining about it too, complaining about the “mean girls” and all the other bullshit he drops around here.

See, Sam, I’m trying to understand your perspective. Have you, honestly, ever really tried to understand the perspective of these people who hate you and spout abhorrent views? Be honest, for once in your life, if only with yourself, here.

@JohnT

This is performative whining. Since you asked and all.

Well, this is what I was referring to as bringing a pillow fight to a debate. He can’t win on facts, he can’t win on persuasiveness, he can’t even win while lying(and that’s far less effective than he thinks it is), must be the mean girls.

[k9bfriender]

@Sam_Stone

The first fifteen years or so resulted in me getting pitted maybe once or twice. Since then, the level of anger has gone through the roof here, just as it has everywhere else.

Well, yeah, but you have become more desperate over the last few years, as the conservative brand you defend became less and less defensible using actual facts and reality. You didn’t use to lie nearly as much as you do now.

And that is why people don’t like you, why you get pitted, because you lie. You lie a lot, and you lie about the very people that you are supposedly having a “civil” conversation with.

People don’t like liars, rather than try to change that, why not just stop lying? Try it out for a while, if it doesn’t work out for you, you can always go back to dishonesty as your primary debate tactic.

[JohnT]

I… … I’ve never… … never… … not once… have I been pitted.

DON’T YOU LOVE ME???

[k9bfriender]

You know, I don’t think I have either. Even though I’ve gone at odds with a number of high profile and prolific posters on numerous occasions. Some pretty damn serious disagreements have been had. I am actually a bit more conservatives on many topics than the board average, so there are a number of things that I can find myself disagreeing on.

Maybe it’s because I just do my best to present my side of the argument, rather than make up a whole bunch of lies in an attempt to defend the indefensible.

[JohnT]

And Sam, before you convince yourself that I hate you, please remember that I repeatedly asked for your participation in my The Long Bust project earlier this year. There were two Members who’s participation I particularly wanted, I got one but missed out on you.

So you are valued, especially by me, so, again, stop it with the ‘nobody likes me, everybody hates me, I guess I’ll go eat worms’ shtick because I, for one, am not buying.

[Hamlet]

@Sam_Stone

I’m against anti-transgender laws except perhaps in the case of young minors, strongly for same-sex marriage, pro-choice (except for perhaps third trimester when the mother’s life isn’t at risk), strongly against book banning by the left and the right, and I’m not sure what kind of opinion I’m supposed to have on obscenity. I don’t believe in censorship for almost any reason.

If I may, why the fuck do you support the Republican party? Is lower taxes for the rich that much more important to you than systemic bigotry against minorities, book banning, reproductive choice, and privacy?

Maybe that could be our debate. I too hold views that contradict the traditional party line (I’m pro-life). How much contempt for minorities and legalizing bigotry and discrimination against “the other” should one have to tolerate in order to get a tax break for those who make more than $400,000 a year?

Hmmm. That wording may be a bit of a stickler for a debate. How about: What is the best way to prioritize one’s political views? I can argue that “traditional conservativism” is more important than social issues, and you can argue that “social conservatism” and discrimination against minorities should be more important than economic policies.

[Atamasama]

I’ve never been Pitted but I’ve been called all kinds of nasty things here, and that’s enough for me.

I mean, I had some nasty stuff today. It’s all good, if you run outside in the rain, you expect muddy shoes.

[Procrustus]

@Hamlet

If I may, why the fuck do you support the Republican party? Is lower taxes for the rich that much more important to you than systemic bigotry against minorities, book banning, reproductive choice, and privacy?

He’s Canadian, he’s just aligning with the American right wing for fun.

[Akaj]

@JohnT

‘nobody likes me, everybody hates me, I guess I’ll go eat worms’

OMG, my mother used to say that! Any idea where it came from? (The quote, not my mother.)

[Atamasama]

@Akaj

OMG, my mother used to say that! Any idea where it came from?

It’s a children’s song.

Nobody Likes Me (Think I'll Go Eat Worms)

[Akaj]

@Atamasama

@Akaj

OMG, my mother used to say that! Any idea where it came from?

It’s a children’s song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbpsUzaKMVA

Must be an old one – my mom taught first grade in the early 60s. Thanks for filling in a chunk of my childhood!

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Sam_Stone

the pictures probably doctored, it was a setup, a conservative fakeout, this never happened.

Citations please for anybody saying this in that thread. Dr. Strangelove’s comment about “misrepresenting the thread” is a very kind way of putting it.

[carrps]

@Akaj

Must be an old one – my mom taught first grade in the early 60s. Thanks for filling in a chunk of my childhood!

I first heard it in the late '50s. It’s old.

[Atamasama]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Citations please for anybody saying this in that thread.

There was speculation about the pictures possibly being doctored (and I don’t think we have confirmation that the photos represent what was claimed, and a recent statement by the school gives greater doubt on that).

Shop class no no’s Shorts, long hair and giant prosthetic boobs?

My suspicion is that there is in fact a trans woman teaching a shop class in the district, but that the photos of her that are causing all of the fuss are all fabricated. That seems like the simplest explanation consistent with all of the known facts: Without the ludicrous exaggeration in the pictures, there’s no story, hence why reputable media aren’t covering it, but the disreputable media is still enough that the real individual is likely to be subject to threats, hence why the school board…

But absolutely nobody called it totally fake. Not even Chronos, who I’m quoting above.

[Max_S]

@Hamlet

What is the best way to prioritize one’s political views? I can argue that “traditional conservativism” is more important than social issues, and you can argue that “social conservatism” and discrimination against minorities should be more important than economic policies.

Despite recent trends in the Republican party, “traditional conservatism” also puts social issues above economic policies. Traditional conservatives object to the legalization and taxation of marijuana and prostitution, for example, even if you demonstrate economic benefits. When debating a traditional conservative, you do not have to argue about prioritizing moral rights versus economic good, you have to argue whether there is a moral right in the first place.

Sam_Stone is not a traditional conservative, as he himself says in so many words:

@Sam_Stone

I’m not a ‘traditional conservative’.

~Max

[Dr.Strangelove]

Sam seems to take exactly the wrong approach to evaluating and internalizing the credibility of his sources.

If a person cites some source for a story, and it turns out to be a blatant fabrication, the person should strongly consider whether to continue using that source. They should also engage in some self-reflection to consider why they ever considered the source credible. Of course, one lie is not enough by itself to make a source completely useless–all sources make mistakes from time to time–but it should be considered a serious problem, especially if it happens repeatedly.

On the other hand, suppose someone casts doubt on a story because the source has been known to fabricate things in the past. If it later turns out that the story is true, it in no way means that the original skepticism was ill-founded. This should be obvious, because one true story does not erase the history of fabrications on completely different subjects. And only a small fraction of stories need to be fabrications for a source to be essentially useless. If even 1% of stories from some source were lies, I’d consider the source to be worthless trash.

Sam seems to think that this second case does warrant some kind of reevaluation or reflection. That, here, perhaps we should have believed the Daily Mail all along, despite their history of being a trashy tabloid.

Complete bunk. Lack of belief is not disbelief. The occasional truth from a liar does not make them not a liar.

[Pleonast]

@JohnT

Be a man.

Sorry to interrupt a well-deserved pitting, but do we really need sexist insults?