Let me be real clear: this message board does NOT need conservatives

Fuck off, liar.

As to boarders, I’d be happy to talk about them! We call them tenants in the US. We’ve been very lucky in our boarders - they pay on time and haven’t caused any trouble at all.

(this is an example of gentle mockery, for the snowflakes among us)


A quick search would had show that there was a lot missed on your sorry talking point.

That was updated just last month.

And there is no need to look at right wing media, the subject is one of the main servings there.

That’s the same sort of mental gymnastics the Truth Movement pulls with NIST. To them, NIST as a whole cannot be trusted but when bits & pieces put out by NIST fit their narrative…

I think us grownups can recoginze that this is kinda the picking-kernels-out-of-the-poop approach, really.

I don’t profess to be a scholar on the following…

…but hasn’t that become quite problematic in becoming an utterly failed peace process? Maybe someone more informed than myself could fill me in.

I suppose we all embellish once in a while, but that strikes me as flat-out ridiculous, unless you can cite something specific for that. How can that even remotely be quantified like that?

Boots on the ground and getting a physical, immediate sense of what is actually going on is always better than conjecturing or opining from some safe-ass distance thousands of miles away. Yeah - more than just a photo-op.
(I gather you don’t regard her too highly.)

And as far as going from this paragraph…

…immediately to this one…

…is concerned, there’s a specific word that’s annoyingly escaping me that describes the logical fallacy of one idea most definitely not following into the next - more of a fallacious non-sequitur than corollary, to be sure.
The fuck is that word? Damn. Yeah, it applies here, especially considering that a good bulk of what we consider modern conservatives are becoming, without question, pronouncedly more blind idealogues than their counterparts on the other side of the aisle, which you already know. The degree of (quite often violent) dogmatism entrenched in even the most militant, oh-noes-antifa reaches of the far left {{{don’t even come close}}} in potential destruction and terror that the far right go to.(cf. Jan. 6, and all the racist darkweb shit plotting all the next domestic terrorist attacks.)
Maybe not the most convincing of reasons why we’d need concervatives here.


damn, I’m tired of parsing, and so this offing:

…every single sentence here could be so easily parsed yet also resulting in six million freaking tangents that I guess I’m too gish-gallopped to deal with presently.

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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

Jesus Christ.

Every one of your large amount of words here relies on the premise that GIGOBuster can say we’re “moving away from racism” in a discussion about racism and talking about “the issue of vaccines” now, solely because he decrees that we are, and that this in no way constitutes a totally illogical conflation of the issues of race and vaccines. It doesn’t matter how much you type if that’s the premise, the premise is flawed.

You can’t say that you value “good faith” and “discussion” and then stand astride the discussion saying “not only am I proclaiming that the discussion is now about a new topic, I am going to impute a bunch of positions on that new topic to my opponents that they obviously do not hold, denounce those positions, and then declare victory on the original topic.”

Well…obviously you can do this, or GIGO and the rest of you would not be constantly doing it. But you shouldn’t. Type another 1000 or 3000 or 60,000 words about it, doesn’t change anything about how fundamentally disingenuous it is.

Of course, I’ve never “denied” any such thing - why is one completely baseless accusation about an irrelevant issue any better than another, especially from the side that claims they value “good faith”?

The issue we’re discussing is the tendency of your clique to label positions “conservative” through unreliable means (accusing people of holding positions they don’t hold, associating one position with another based on nothing more than your say-so, ignoring the fact that the positions are extremely common among groups that no reasonable person could define as “conservative”) in order to make a bridge to this thread’s premise that “conservative” positions should be in some way or another outside the bounds of acceptable posting in this board’s political debate forums. So no, I will not accept that you are the judge of what constitutes “conservative positions in general” or their relevance given the context of the discussion.

It did succeed. It kept the fascist lie ball in the air where it is right now.

Trying to think of any consistently good-faith right wing posters here, and all I could come up with were Crafterman and the departed Bone.
Really? That’s it?

Not alone, perhaps. There’s a history there, but I recognize that not everyone has that same history.

The Jan. 6 attempt was just the first one. Trump supporters may indeed be stupid (sidetrack observation: Trump supporters’ objections to being called “stupid” is really one of their driving forces, isn’t it?) but even they will learn how to do it better next time. They are indeed demonstrating their learning curve with their emphasis on controlling election results with their state legislative majorities and their continued purge of key personnel who remain loyal to the process instead of to Trump.

If that’s all there was, I would agree. But you left out that they brought up the subject in the first place. If the subject is so complicated that you don’t want to discuss it, then it’s disingenuous to bring it up in the discussion in the first place. It’s a way of asserting something without backing it up. If you find you can’t defend your stance, you withdraw it.

I also note that past history is relevant on giving someone the benefit of the doubt. And iiandyiiii is 100% right to observe that DemonTree is often disingenuous in her arguments, especially to him. It actually takes a lot of work for iiandyiiii to start calling someone a “liar.” He falls over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt for a while, but eventually that dries up.

I also note my last reply to DemonTree was me pointing out that she was being disingenuous in arguing with iiandyiiii, arguing something that she doesn’t believe herself. You can’t demand you treat even the vilest scum with respect, while arguing that a particular minority is not worthy of respect.

And, now, in her reply, she’s saying that it’s okay to discriminate against people for innate characteristics is okay, even though she’s previously said she thinks sexism and racism are wrong. And she’s accusing me of sexism, acting like that’s a bad thing, when her previous paragraph just said sexism was okay.

She’s a poster who is not interested in making a coherent point with a consistent wordview, but just piecing together whatever she can come up with to go after others, regardless of if it makes any sense.

Of course by now it is clear that you are not disingenuous, only an incompetent that does not know that the thread then was about dishonesty being the reason for getting people into the pit, there were some posters that were indeed posting stupidly dangerous points on the Quarantine Forum, and they were taken to task in the pit too. That most of the talking points were getting adopted by the right wing was becoming clear.

It is again curious that you are becoming insulted on the behalf of dishonest anti vaxxers and right wing pundits and politicians that dismissed the danger.

Oh, nonsense.

Most of my large number of words pointed out that the posts you’re accusing don’t say what, specifically, you claimed that they do.

Attempting to now impute false meaning to a post in which GIGObuster said that they, GIGObuster was moving away from a discussion of racism as a reason for pitting posters, in order to somehow attempt to turn it into a post decreeing that everybody else in the thread must also do so, is just adding more bullshit. And claiming that either of us is or was proclaiming that “the discussion is now about a new topic” ignores entirely the fact that the topic was never racism in the first place. It was about what people were being pitted for; and it continued to be so. Why do you think you’re entitled to declare that, when discussing what people are getting pitted for, only one possible reason could be mentioned? – never mind. Because you’re trying to distract from the fact that you made specific claims about specific posts which are clearly wrong.

Indeed, and thank you, @thorny_locust for all that effort.

… [while I put a lot of notes and the iron maiden I was taking out to use against Zoster into the storage room again]…

IIRC there were a few conservatives that even came to deal with the anti intellectuals over here (the ones that are becoming independents and drop a lot of their Republican or more conservative affiliations as time goes by). Some even came to point out that they are conservatives that did not vote for Trump and, this is key, they decided not to defend the swill that some extreme conservatives are trying to pass as good faith discussions.

Bone, Bricker, and Adaher: those are three conservatives who at least made, I thought, an honest attempt to use facts to support their worldview. This’ll be controversial but I basically feel UltraVires is capable of this much of the time.

Well, I don’t totally disagree. That’s why I said the issues behind it were a bigger problem, but these don’t seem to be being addressed at all. I’m not even sure how they best would be.

Yeah, it’s not what I thought you were going to talk about. I wouldn’t have given more than five minutes to investigating those accusations, but hey…

Considering we were talking about people on the board being pitted, it is absolutely irrelevant whether random conservatives off it are refusing to accept evidence about vaccines. As GIGO’s post was addressed to me, I saw it as either an attempt to imply I support anti-vaxxers, on the ‘logic’ that I supported some other conservative position - so basically what ZS said but without the hyperbole - or just another example of GIGO failing to follow the conversation and throwing out random crap. Either way, I reported the post as off topic.

And that’s where I still am, pretty much. I think GIGO is trying to make some kind of guilt-by-association argument, thought certainly not in the blatant way ZS claimed.

The topic of the thread was about dishonesty being the most likely reason why one would be pitted. If you think anti-vaxxination ideas are not that, you are sadly mistaken. You also on that thread made a reference by implying that the conservatives of today were a reasonable side. The right wing media resorting to anti-vaxxine messaging showed also that you don’t know what you are talking about when judging who is reasonable. Just saying.