Is there a left/right bias in dealing with hyperbolic posters?

[Face_Intentionally_Left_Blank]

@Shodan

And the way to stick around long enough to be an accepted abusive asshole is to be a left-wing abusive asshole.

With every post, you prove that your stance is incorrect.

[magellan01]

@Face_Intentionally_Left_Blank

With every post, you prove that your stance is incorrect.

That was pretty good. Wrong, but good.

[crowmanyclouds]

@Shodan

And the way to stick around long enough to be an accepted abusive asshole is to be a left-wing abusive asshole. … there are no equivalents on the right wing on whose behalf such an effort is made. …

Don’t we first need to find a right-wing poster who was banned for being an abusive asshole and not some other reason? (Having a sock, non-abusive assholery, abusive assholery outside the pit, etc.)

I wouldn’t be surprised to find that there are some here that might be willing to characterize you as an accepted, abusive, right-wing asshole.*

@Shodan

… Name a poster who expressed even mild support for Bush who was reinstated after being banned. …

That’s the litmus test for who is or a Republican/conservative/right-winger?

'Cause I’m very aware that there are plenty of Republican/conservative/right-wingers that hate Bush just as much as Der Trihs, though not necessarily for the same reasons.

The exact level of that hatred really varies with just which Bush policies we’re talking about supporting. Torture and foreign policy will get folks foaming at the mouth real quick, domestic policy not so much.

Bush’s foreign policy ain’t even in the top 20 for certain to get real ugly, real quick, thread subjects.
Name a poster who expressed even mild support for;
well-done steaks,
SUVs,
driving the speed limit in the passing lane,
the Balrog, winged or not,
movies directed by Paul Verhoeven,
tipping,
(need I go on?)
who was reinstated after being banned.

CMC fnord!

• Maybe these guys?

@tacoloco

Whatever you say, Shodan.

Regards,

Look In the Mirror

@Face_Intentionally_Left_Blank

With every post, you prove that your stance is incorrect.

[Zoe]

magellan01: Not all requests for cites are reasonable. Particularly those that ask someone to prove a negative. This has been explained to you. And, evidently, ignored. Instead, you choose to carp on it thinking you make some grand, or “winning” point. You don’t.

Thank you for the instruction in a subject that I was teaching in high school classrooms probably before you were born.

You don’t really want to debate and you reject attempts to help you – not just from me, but from others.

As long as you have that chip on your shoulder, you will twist everything that is said to make it into bias against the right.

You show no understanding of my original post. Just because you infer something from a message, that does not mean that that was what was implied or intended.

(Zeriel, among others, has been able to explain my own post better than I did, so I refer you to his post if that will be helpful.

[magellan01]

@Zoe

You don’t really want to debate and you reject attempts to help you – not just from me, but from others.

Ah, such syrupy condescension. What chapter of How To Win Friends And Influence People did you get that from? And I’m pretty sure that I know what I want better than you, if you can believe that. And, rest assured that if I ever feel I’d like help debating I wouldn’t seek it from someone who doesn’t now the proper role of cites, including when and when not calling from them is appropriate. I’ve seen enough of your debating style to know that it is something I don’t want to emulate. This last post of yours being ample evidence.

@Zoe

As long as you have that chip on your shoulder, you will twist everything that is said to make it into bias against the right.

Check out a mirror, hun. You have had a chip on your shoulder about me for quite a while. YOU engage ME. Nice try, though.

@Zoe

You show no understanding of my original post. Just because you infer something from a message, that does not mean that that was what was implied or intended.

That is not just false, but marvelously false. I even parsed it for you. I even responded to what other’s said. Now if you didn’t intend to say what you wrote, that’s something can be fixed with editing. But first you have to acknowledge where the problem lies. I’ve seen that you have a very inflated opinion of yourself. Something that is quite unwarranted.

But, go ahead, keep telling yourself what a great mind you have and how well tuned it is for debate…

[Zoe]

You are becoming nasty and abusive. And you confuse my past and the present.

[magellan01]

@Zoe

You are becoming nasty and abusive. And you confuse my past and the present.

I can’t help it if you mind when someone defends themselves and deflects your condescension. I don’t know what the second sentence is supposed to point to, but I’m happy to keep it a mystery.

Good night.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Little_Nemo

A conservative is going to see a lot more opinions on this board that he disagrees with than a liberal is. And the amount of these confrontations increase the likelihood that a conservative here will cross the line into becoming a jerk.

This doesn’t mean that conservatives are inherently more argumentative than liberals. It’s just that this is a situation where conservatives have more cause to argue. If this were a more conservative board, it would be liberals who would be most often finding posts they disagreed with and argued against.

Nor am I saying this absolves conservatives (or liberals) for what they post. Regardless of how many conservatives and liberals there are on this baord, everyone is an individual and is responsible for their own actions.

I blame society.

[Zoe]

I need suggestions on where to lay the blame this year. So far I’ve done my sister, Mitzi Carol Baker, Mother, Ford Modeling Agency, Bill, Mother, Mother, Mother, Professor Smith, a hornets’ nest, a Viking, our stars, a motorcycle, his family, communication problems, LBJ, Nixon, school administrators, pollen, the heat, the cold, being fifty, being sixty-five, the doctor, the cat, Der Trihs, the mods, combsuckers, and the Crimson Tide.

I think I’m getting warmer.

[Gyrate]

“Combsuckers”?

[Zeriel]

@magellan01

For the purposes of what I’ve been saying, there’s very little difference. Whether one believes that hostility, intolerance, and simplicity are antithetical to one political persuasion or if they exist that they necessarily belong to the other is similar evidence of blind partisanship.

I don’t really agree with this, personally, exactly the opposite–I believe that hostility, intolerance, and simplicity are antithetical to all mainstream political positions. That people who claim to be on this side or that will take those strategies doesn’t say anything important about the positions themselves in the main.

We on the right don’t want any part of him.

Well, if we’re all speaking for our entire political groups here, Zoe on the left doesn’t appear to want him either, and neither do I in the center.

[Czarcasm]

@magellan01

We on the right don’t want any part of him.

Are we mistaken, or did you, in another recent thread, decry the use of the term “we” by other posters who presume to speak for members of a larger group? If so, we apologize.

[Der_Trihs]

@Czarcasm

Are we mistaken, or did you, in another recent thread, decry the use of the term “we” by other posters who presume to speak for members of a larger group? If so, we apologize.

You thinking of this?

@magellan01

Here’s an idea I think would help foster better debate: don’t allow a mob to form by the people in a debate employing “we”/“us”. As in, “We don’t think that makes sense…” or “You haven’t convinced us…”. This tactic is often employed in debates where on side greatly outnumbers the other. Yes, I have been on the receiving end of this, and I’ve also seen it done to others. It adds zero to the debate, does not help the validity of anyone’s position (except by a fallacious Appeal to the Masses), and tends to close minds. There is really no upside to it, other than it allows the weak of mind or chickenshit posters who can’t cut it on their own over confident. On the downside, it tends to quash unpopular views.

Yes, this would be an excellent improvement.

[Czarcasm]

@Der_Trihs

You thinking of this?

Yup.

[aldiboronti]

@Czarcasm

Are we mistaken, or did you, in another recent thread, decry the use of the term “we” by other posters who presume to speak for members of a larger group? If so, we apologize.

Ouch! Hoist by his own petard. That’s gotta be painful!

[Zeriel]

That was a good catch, at that.

[dba_Fred]

@Czarcasm

Are we mistaken, or did you, in another recent thread, decry the use of the term “we” by other posters who presume to speak for members of a larger group? If so, we apologize.

At the last meeting of the Righties, on the agenda item of “Der Trihs, not wanting any part of”, I recall giving magellan01 my proxy (it was right before pie was served).
As he was speaking for himself and I (at the very least), magellan01’s use of “We” was proper.
So there

Regardlessly,
dba Fred

[Skywatcher]

We are not amused.

[crowmanyclouds]

@Czarcasm

Are we mistaken, or did you, in another recent thread, decry the use of the term “we” by other posters who presume to speak for members of a larger group? If so, we apologize.

Not just decry, he wants a rule,

@magellan01

@Pedro

Who’s we? We’re not “we”, douchebag, because I don’t need the cool kids telling me who to pick on. Grow the fuck up. …

Good call. I recommended a rule change about just this sort of thing just the other day.

At the very least magellan01 should give himself a warning, maybe even a 30 day time out!

CMC fnord!

[CircleofWillis]

I’ve got an idea!

Let’s hijack the thread and play some lame, smarmy-ass game of gotcha in order to ignore the theme of the thread and pile on someone we (and I say we cuz I dont give a fuck about hte whole we or I thing) don’t like.

Oh wait…