We noticed!
Yeah, I think everybody noticed that, too- when you stopped posting as soon as Obama got re-elected. It’s not that embarrassing if you’re not a jerk about expressing your opinions.
I am advised that a “bake sale” is not getting baked and selling stuff. So, maybe not.
Actually, this is the new experience. My posting style is just fine everywhere else. You know why I left the first time? Because this board did meet a higher standard and I quickly recognized I wasn’t up to that standard. Was I chased away by insults and being hounded from thread to thread? No. You’d be amazed at what a few “this statement has no evidence in support of it” or some such to get you to slink off somewhere.
But now you got me in a fightin’ mood. Especially since the quality on this board has fallen so much that I don’t feel like my presence is hurting it.
Skewed polls.
Scylla, come back! All is forgiven.
How was I a jerk? I’m being a jerk now, but that’s because I was provoked for a long time. Some of you nitwits need to be put in your place.
Being civil is not enough. You need to make more of an effort to not be wrong. Seriously, pretty please- read over any fact-like statement you make- then go research it. Make sure you can back it up before you post it. No, most people don’t need to do this every time- but you should, at least for a while. Why not try? It might take some effort, but wouldn’t it be nice to be mostly correct in just about every post?
There’s an elegant way to be wrong and an inelegant one. Not all posters–but most of them!–welcome elegant wrongness. It’s what keeps these conversations from getting terribly dull.
The elegant way:
[ul]
[li]Present propositions with some degree of humility[/li][li]Engage with those who disagree in good faith[/li][li]Interpret your opponents arguments charitably[/li][li]Acknowledge error when it is revealed[/li][/ul]
The inelegant way:
[ul]
[li]Present propositions as absolute truths your opponents were hiding[/li][li]Drop bombs and then move on to other topics without engaging in depth[/li][li]Interpret your opponents arguments in the way that makes them easiest to rebut[/li][li]Never acknowledge a mistake[/li][/ul]
No one is perfect, and I can think of a few threads where I did all of the things in the negative column. But you’ve got to at least be striving for the elegant way. It’s a double standard for sure. A lot of liberal posters on this board do it the inelegant way and take half the shit you do. But them’s the breaks. When I post in conservative places, because I’m usually disagreeing, I gotta make sure the only disagreeable thing I’m offering up is the content and not the style if I want people to take me seriously.
Ah, but did I not explain my reasoning, thoroughly? I was wrong, but I was thinking, not just spouting something I’d heard somewhere else.
Actually, I’m trying really hard to avoid just pulling stuff out of my butt that I assume to be true, even though it is actually as common on this board as on any other.
One of the things I like about a liberal-dominated board is that you will get challenged if you make an unsupported statement. So I’m just trying to return the favor, since so much liberal orthodoxy goes unchallenged here. Such as your own assertion, which while mostly true, did need more context that wasn’t being supplied here.
I’m not sure what you were doing, but I “thinking” is not the right term for it.
Good advice, and I am actually listening.
You still aren’t thanks to that whole constantly wrong thing. There’s no place where that’s considered an asset.
Yeah, I already explained this in much more depth than it actually required. I’m not doing it again.
You were not thinking, and it’s daft that you really think anyone would be impressed by this. (It’s like that quip about Newt Gingrich being what a dumb person thinks a smart person sounds like.) The reasoning you used was the same pile of crap every other skewed-polls idiot used, full stop. There were never any facts in support of that theory. It was wishful thinking and you fell for it. People explained that to you and it did not make a dent. You were spectacularly wrong and we can see you recognized it afterward.
Please try harder.
What false statements/liberal orthodoxy routinely goes without challenge here? Sure, some idiot liberals (like the recently banned guy) are consistently ignored, but please, point out some stuff liberals say over and over again that is not challenged.
Then you need to look up the definition of “thinking”. One can think about something and come to totally wrong conclusions.
Conservatives were seeing these polls showing turnout at 2008 levels for minority voters. Conservatives would then interview these pollsters and ask them to back up their turnout models by outright predicting that turnout would in fact be at 2008 levels, and most demurred. That lack of confidence in their own polling fueled our belief that they were doing it wrong. It wasn’t just wishful thinking like when Democrats believed there would be massive new turnout in 2004 that the polls weren’t picking up. It was equally wrong, but a lot more well thought out.
I just read this and know that nothing I am saying can ever penetrate your skull.
You want people to essentially make up good arguments for your side (because you can’t) and then they should address those good arguments.
WTF would we need you around for if we have to invent the good arguments ourselves?
If I see a long post with some good arguments and bad arguments, I address them fairly. I don’t just seize on the bad one and say, “See, we can’t trust anything else you said here.” which is a chickenshit way to just avoid the issue. A common tactic here.
Pollsters “demurred”? What a load of retroactive, full-spin hackery bullshit. The polling was pretty clear through most of the race, and you just were clinging to turds to stay afloat. No, your BS was not more well thought out. It was the same BS every losing side goes through- actually, the big difference between 2012 and 2004 is that the 2004 election was quite close- just one closely fought state being the difference. Your BS stunk worse, in fact.
Right.
They did. They were asked again and again, “Do you predict minority turnout at 2008 levels?” and they said, “We don’t know.”
That’s not standing by your polling.