He did not.
What he was saying is that posters were using bogus complaints about board standards to pressure him to conform to the majority viewpoint.
What I said.
“Hive mind” is essentially the reverse of the logical fallacy Argumentum ad populum. Because an argument is the popular one, it is thereby suspect. It does not address the merits of any position, only its popularity.
You second sentence (“because … thereby…”) is your own invention and is not anywhere implied - let alone stated - in the quoted post.
You’re kind of missing the point of this discussion. We are discussing how the temperatures rise in these debates. You basically said that GIGO and I are equally responsible and i am presenting evidence that i was responding after a few rounds of patience to provocation from him. Can you at least acknowledge that?
If you want to debate the substance, then please do so in the thread. I am sure I can address whatever arguments you would like to make there. These are not “experts” just because GIGO says they are?
How the fuck is Kat Chow any more of an “expert” than Andrew Sullivan? GIGObuster doesn’t make a whole lot of actual arguments. He links internet opinions and declares victory.
Please, I would LOVE to be engaged on the merits. That is not what happens here. There is a group of overly woke white people who live in an echo chamber that lets them think that their racism against asians is somehow acceptable and the asians that are bothered by it are using the wrong “tone” when complaining about the racism.
Well you have now.
I’ve never used the term hive mind. I have used the term echo chamber and this site certainly qualifies and way left positions are reinforced by others who share those way left psotions to the point where people on this board think that some way left of center positions are mainstream.
I have used the term overly-woke white people to refer to a specific phenomenon among progressive white people who have jumped the shark on social justice.
Either this is a straw man or you actually think I use the phrase hive mind. Can you cite to a few posts where I abuse this phrase?
I believe that’s the generic “your”, not a direct accusation.
Your use of “echo chamber” is identical to the way octopus uses “hive mind.” If it makes you feel better, mentally substitute the one for the other in each of Colibri’s posts. The message doesn’t change because the terms are, in the context of their use on these boards by two specific posters, interchangeable.
Bingo. You lose.
Still waiting.
This kind of tactic, where you deny you said something that you clearly said (in post #25), while trying to give yourself cover by moving the goalposts to qualify it by saying “a few posts” and “abusing” the phrase, is why you run into so much trouble in debates. The only reason I used the phrase in the first place is because you used it in your post first. In addition, you are engaging in exactly the same tactic by using the terms “echo chamber” and “woke”. You are insulting people who don’t agree with you.
That’s the problem with present-day usage of “woke”, particularly on the 'Net: casting stones at those who don’t agree with you.
“If all you’re doing is casting stones, you’re probably not going to get that far.” - Barack Obama
I think the context and connotation is different. YMMV.
Pretty sure I don’t. Are you denying that there are woke white people who live in an echo chamber?
Just to take your example of godwinization. Do you lose if you point out that there are in fact nazis out there?
Rather than complain about how I name groups based on their behavior, you could just join that debate.
That is a pretty disingenuous use of citation. I didn’t use the term in reference to the left. I used the term to show that the left was fairly comfortable with the term when applied to the right.
I disagree.
And I was responding to another post that used the phrase.
I think those people may feel insulted but it is not insulting. I cannot control how others feel about facially neutral, factually accurate descriptions. This may simply be a case of case of overly sensitive, easily offended woke folks being offended by the truth.
This site is an echo chamber by most definitions of the term. The term echo chamber is fairly well used in legitimate debate to describe an effect that occurs when people surround themselves with others that agree with them and somehow conclude that their limited view of the world (reinforced mostly by others that already agree with them) is an accurate view of the world.
We saw this in the thread in questions (which I once again invite you to join) where GIGObuster pulls a few internet opinions out of the ether and declares victory because the people who already agreed with him happen to agree with him.
Of course there are far more stones being cast in my direction than I am casting.
I would once again refer you to the thread in questions and ask you who you think cast the first stone? And how many stones did they cast before I started chucking them back?
I have no interest in whatever game you’re playing, ergo I don’t give a shit.
That said, no side has a monopoly on baiting the denizens of this board.
Nope, I said that their educated opinions and experiences, that I agree with are dismissed with no good effort by you, since they are not dealt with, it follows then that their opinions stand.
As I noted here, my experience has been that to dismiss an expert or an opinion of someone with experience it is not good to just claim that the people cited are just tokens or self haters, those descriptions to dismiss what they say are just opinions.
This very clearly shows the kind of tactics that cause people to become frustrated with you in Great Debates. No, the remarks are not factually neutral or accurate. You clearly intend these terms to be insulting, then blame others for being insulted by them.
There’s really no point in discussing this further with you.
And yet when I say “both sides do it” I get pages and pages of crap about how wrong I am.
There is no game here and you are free not to give a crap. You can certainly engage in drive by posting and shoot from the hip. The notion that things are equal is incorrect. Yes both sides do it and noone’s hands are clean.
That is why is suggested that moderators step in before things start to escalate. I have literally reported that I thought the comment “but it does tell me a lot about the way you think” was provoking and have an moderator say “well it doesn’t offend me” and blow it off. Stepping in and telling people to knock it off would go a long was towards NEITHER side doing it.
This board really hates bothsiderism. Thing is, there has been more than two sides when it comes to baiting – I see Stormfront trolls, who invaded at least twice, as having their own side.
And here you are, wrong yet again. What you get “crap” for is the disproportionality of what both sides do, as has been pointed out to you numerous times.
And once again, how is kat chow a greater expert in this area than sullivan? She’s just an random internet opinion.
Feel free to make an argument (ANY ARGUMENT) on that thread instead of linking random articles taht you think support you.
You literally cited a college student’s opinion from her college newspaper. Your cites are pretty random.
Tone policing should go both ways. On this board it does not. I will play nice when you guys do. I was suggesting a way for EVERYONE to play nice by cutting off these escalations before they escalate. I think you will find that in most threads my tone is merely an escalation of shitty tone from others.
So when you do it, well that’s just facts but when I do it the board hates it. You literally just saud both sides provoke each other. Well I would ask you to look at this thread and see who provoked who. Once again, maybe not in every case but more often than not I am responding to shitty tone from others.
I think moderators could tone police more to eliminate the sniping that leads to this sort of escalation rather than blowing it off because it hasn’t crossed some line.
Nope. It’s because when your side does it, there is an explanation and rational reasons for it, when their side does it, it’s because they are bad people.
When it comes to partisanship, both sides do it. But that’s yet another thread where the echo chamber just sort of lines up on the “we are on the side of the angels” so the other guys must be the bad guys. The inability to see the flaws in your own side is a pretty big flaw in itself.