Oh hell no don’t give me that. It can happen here. It can happen in the UK. It can happen any god damn where, that is the real lesson of Nazi Germany. (And yes I will godwin when it’s actually relevant.)
Did the January 6 insurrection have much chance of succeeding in 2020? No, it didn’t. Does it have a better chance of succeeding the next time, or the time after that, or the time after that, if it’s written off as no big deal? It most certainly does.
And what Onan’s known for doing in the Bible was not actually masturbation.
Which possibly makes it an even better fit: a misinterpretation of what was originally reported has taken over almost entirely from the original language.
I don’t think either a refusal to engage further with you, or a desire not to possibly spend most of one’s day or month working up an answer to a complicated subject, necessarily requires bad faith.
I think what you’re talking about is what I was going to address in my now-heading-for-400-posts-later (and probably past it by the time I get this finished) reply. Which DemonTree has asked for, though possibly without realizing that’s what it’s about; and most of it actually isn’t addressed to her. Here we go, and long post warning:
Since it’s a long way back in the thread, I’m going to start by quoting parts of the discussion at that point to clarify what I’m referring to, and to make it easier for anyone who wants to quickly find the entire posts and their context:
First of all, the only sense I can make out of that accusation is that you’re upset that I wanted to actually read the posts you were talking about before deciding whether I agreed with you, or possibly because I wanted to read the context of the post which DemonTree referred to before deciding whether I agreed specifically about whether it was out of context; and therefore are accusing me of a knee jerk reaction instead of actually considering the matter – which is the exact opposite of what I was and am actually doing.
I don’t know whether that’s because you realized that anybody looking at the posts in question is going to see that they don’t say anything remotely like what you’re accusing them of saying; or whether it’s just your automatic reaction to anything or possibly anybody you disagree with to throw out the first false accusation that comes to mind, either in the hope that nobody will bother to look, or under the delusion that wild exaggeration and misrepresentation are a useful debating technique. They may be in some circles (though it’s possible that you think you’ve won debates in this fashion when in reality people have just rolled their eyes and gone away); but I very much hope they never become a useful debating technique on these boards.
Now on to the posts themselves:
Re the post DemonTree referenced, which is here:
@DemonTree, I read back to post 205 in that thread. The thread, which is about reasons why posters are pitted, had been in thoe previous posts mostly discussing whether there’s prejudice for conservative views because they’re conservative, or whether conservatives are being pitted for refusing to accept evidence. Racism’s one issue, not the only one.
@GIGObuster had previously replied to DemonTree in post 214; starting, as near as I can tell, from claims that progressives think of conservative stands on issues conservatives don;t think of as having to do with race as racist. GIGObuster says conservatives are often reacting to false info about what progressives are actually doing, giving CRT as an example.
The conversation then moves to varying ideas of what postions are or aren’t racist/sexist.
Gigobuster, in the post being cited, then quotes a bit of DemonTree on that subject and then says they’re moving away from racism to vaccines, and says that conservatives are refusing to accept evidence also about vaccines.
So it does look out of context taken just as a reply to the specific post, and it would have been clearer not to quote DemonTree but just to reply to the thread; as well as to specifically relate the post to the topic. But it doesn’t seem to me to be out of context to either the thread as a whole, or the discussion a relative handful of posts earlier. Whether conservatives are being pitted for being conservative, or for ignoring evidence and refusing proper discussion, does seem to me a significant part of the thread part of the thread.
It is my considered opinion, after reading both that post and its context, that it fails four out of 5 of ZosterSandstorm’s criteria. It does characterize anti-vaxxing as a position held by many (note the “many”) conservatives, which is accurate. It is out of context to the post it quotes, which I agree is a flaw in it. It most certainly does not call ZosterSandstorm (or DemonTree, for that matter) an anti-vaxxer.
In post #911, ZosterSandstorm cites 166 and 172 in this thread as meeting those criteria, and further says .
(and considerably more; but look at the post itself if you want, since again I’ve made that easy by quoting so as to provide the link.)
#166 isn’t addressed to ZosterSandstorm and doesn’t reference them. It’s addressed to Demontree. It doesn’t say anything about vaxxing.
Tracing back in that discussion through what each post was applying to, we come to 160 which does address ZosterSandstorm, and is specifically answering the quoted claim that GIGObuster accused everyone else of being an anti-vaxxer. This apparently does refer to post #224 in the reasons-to-be-pitted thread, though that’s not entirely clear. Presuming that it does: that post most certainly doesn’t accuse everyone else, or even every conservative, of being an antivaxxer. It says “issue of vaccines is also being dealt with in the worse way by many conservatives out there. Further discussion or evidence is being dismissed at very dangerous levels.” Note the “many”; and also the “out there.” There are then two cites referring to Fox News and to Republican lawmakers. Citing Fox News is not remotely the same as accusing ZosterSandstorm of “being the right wing media”.
#172 is addressed to ZosterSandstorm, but also doesn’t call them an anti-vaxxer. It says they’re denying what’s in the right wing media and being done by right wing leaders. Saying that ZosterSandstorm is trying to deny that opposition to covid-19 vaccination is common in the conservative press and among conservative lawmakers is not the same as accusing them of being personally an anti-vaxxer.
So the additional accusations made by ZosterSandstorm in post 911 are clearly false. As to the original five criteria:
-
GIGObuster comes into “every thread” to characterize an argument as conservative.
– clearly not every thread; a quick look at posting history shows posts in various threads in various forums in which they’ve posted on other subjects and have not brought up conservative positions at all.
– whether “every thread” or every thread recently in which the discussion already involved politics, I reserve judgement because I haven’t time to read all those threads. -
GIGObuster comes into multiple threads to characterize an argument as conservative.
– if phrased this way, then yes, that might be accurate, though I haven’t hunted up more than the two. If it’s reasonably on topic, I don’t see that it’s a problem; at least, unless the arguments being claimed either aren’t held by a large percentage of people currently presenting themselves as conservative, or are held also by a large number of people opposing conservatives.
I mean, if GIGObuster’s claiming that liking parties is a conservative position, that would be absurd. If they’re claiming that opposing affirmative action is currently a conservative position, that’s pretty accurate. Not every single conservative needs to be espousing it, nor every single liberal to be favoring it, in order for it to be a conservative position.
-
GIGObuster then brings up some other unrelated conservative position.
– Since the discussion in the particular two threads the posts were cited from isn’t about one specific conservative position, but in one case whether people were being pitted for taking conservative positions in general and in the other whether conservative positions in general are wanted on this message board, the fact that one conservative position is or appears unrelated to another conservative position is irrelevant. Conservative positions in general are relevant to the threads. Patterns of behavior are being discussed in the threads, so discussing whether those patterns are similar through different positions is relevant.
– So unrelated to the other position, yes; but unrelated to the thread, no. -
then yell at the person making the argument
– Sometimes true; though not, as noted, in the post claimed as setting this whole thing off; nor in posts #166 or #172, though accurate for post #160.
. -
for being an anti-vax conservative
– Clearly false, at least in the posts cited. In none of them did GIGObuster call any poster anti-vax. The accusation is of denying that conservative news sites and politicians are currently anti-vax.
And if you (ZosterSandstorm) want to try to characterize all the above as some sort of knee-jerk take-the-group-opinion-without-thinking, you’re going to look even sillier than you do already.