Okay, that’s more or less fair summation of the tactics SS uses, where he’ll pick a single point out of 10-20 arguments to technically defeat and claim victory despite ignoring the remaining 99%. I don’t think I’d use the term pile-on for it though, but your intent is much clearer. As for the last point, yeah, well, the better fix would to impose on our overworked unpaid mods to create a more formal debate forum where this tactic (and unsupported supposition, incorrect and poorly sourced cites, and the rest of Sam’s bag of tricks) would get short shrift.
I’m not sure that it is clear. If you go back in the thread a little bit, I was saying that when a dozen posters pile on against an unpopular post (or poster) that it doesn’t really add much to a discussion or debate. I’ve been in threads where I read a post I wanted to comment on, but it’s already drawn so many replies that one more from me would probably just get lost in the noise.
So I don’t think those pile-ons are necessary, or helpful. In addition to that, they dilute their side of the debate, as I described. Rather than taking strength from the number of posters on one side, they let the unpopular poster pick and choose who he responds to.
I didn’t specifically call out @Sam_Stone for that, but what’s the target of a pile-on supposed to do? I post here as a diversion in my spare time. If I had dozens of posters trying to debate me at the same time I wouldn’t have time to do research, find sites, and craft well-considered replies to all of them.
(None of which is meant to excuse someone who posts misleading arguments, or mischaracterized cites; but plenty of people have already made those points.)
Take a hint?
Would you say the same to a liberal poster who was vastly outnumbered on a conservative message board?
I don’t think people can be, or should be bullied into changing their sincerely-held beliefs. The best we can hope for is that people come here with open minds, participate in good faith, and want to learn. That goes for folks on both sides.
Liberals aren’t usually vastly outnumbered on conservative message boards.
They are usually banned.
What does this have to do with Sammy?
I agree. The main beef with Sam’s posts, the ones that trigger a shit show, are that they’re false or misleading. That’s not to say he doesn’t catch grief for his base beliefs, but ISTM that’s not what leads to all the commotion.
Maybe not reading cites and doubling down on inaccurate posts are his sincerely held beliefs.
I’d like to note that Sam hasn’t posted since he last said he was tired of this place, and may have fully flounced.
His profile says he was here 14 minutes ago (as of this post). So more of a sulk. If he wants to emulate a flounce he should set it to private.
Elmo erected a huge crucifix on the top of Twitter HQ shortly after Sammy’s latest martyr complex meltdown emerged. Coincidence?
In case he’s reading this, I hope he stays away forever. I’m tired of every thread I might have interest in participating in turning into another episode of the Sam Stone show. I don’t think he adds any any value to this board.
Just go away, dude.
Just bumping to remark this was his last post (July 20th)
I hope he’s okay and just tired of us.
Check his profile. He’s here pretty much every day. He was here 2 hours ago.
I couldn’t figure out how to do that. Thanks.
Despite this thread, I think Sam is often insightful and at his best very informative. However, he should perhaps rely less on conservative talking points.
And read his cites before posting them.
I’m sorry, though I agree he has had good points, he’s a propaganda mill, and when he states something as fact, I can’t trust that it is true without checking both anything he cites and all the underlying facts I can dig up. He’s just too much work. I give almost any poster the benefit of the doubt, but he’s run out those benefits long ago. He doesn’t serve up facts, he serves up an agenda.
And his whining about being a victim is unbelievable.
I’m 100% with @squeegee here. Dozens upon dozens of times he has willfully misrepresented information without a casual effort to vet it. Sure, anyone can throw in a bad cite or two, being in a hurry, or even flat out honestly misreading something.
To keep on doing so, doubling down, and continuing to misrepresent such on multiple occasions? Hell no. It’s disrespectful to everyone else on the board who might read it, and dishonest to the point that I for one find it indistinguishable from trolling.
The “woe is me, everyone hates me” is pathetic, considering the sheer number of people who continue to try to reason with them, give them the benefit of the doubt, or otherwise try to rehabilitate S_S.
If they come back, and if they are able to support their POV with factual information that is consistent with their argument, I’ll still probably disagree with their agenda, but won’t automatically dismiss them based on clear prior evidence.
Perhaps?!?