Omnibus Trolls R Us Thread

[BigT]

@Annoyed

Why are you so angry?

Literally no one who isn’t a troll asks that question. It, like it’s cousin “calm down,” is an attempt to piss the other person off by insisting they are angry and dismissing their argument.

You’re clearly here not to have a debate, but to try and piss others off. So, you see, we don’t have to tolerate you.

[octopus]

@BigT

Literally no one who isn’t a troll asks that question. It, like it’s cousin “calm down,” is an attempt to piss the other person off by insisting they are angry and dismissing their argument.

You’re clearly here not to have a debate, but to try and piss others off. So, you see, we don’t have to tolerate you.

Triggered by being asked to calm down? In the pit? And I thought I was the ultra sensitive snowflake of the pit.

[kayaker]

@octopus

Triggered by being asked to calm down? In the pit? And I thought I was the ultra sensitive snowflake of the pit.

Have you read what BigT has written in his last two posts?

[running_coach]

@kayaker

Have you read what BigT has written in his last two posts?

Ultra sensitive snowflakes don’t read for comprehension when it might upset them.

[bobot]

@kayaker

Have you read what BigT has written in his last two posts?

Yeah, but he said “triggered”. I think that’s supposed to sting, or something.

[BigT]

@kayaker

Have you read what BigT has written in his last two posts?

Of course he has. The problem is that he never reads anything in the Pit with the goal of understanding it. It’s all about trying to find the “gotchas,” without regard with whether they actually make sense or have anything to do with the broader point the poster was making. Hell, he doesn’t care that he’s contradicting his own previous arguments about how the Pit is horrible and shouldn’t exist.

Thing is, he used to be worth engaging with, back when it wasn’t all about proving that he was better than all of us.

[Annoyed]

@BigT

Nope. It’s mainstream. It’s call the paradox of tolerance. It even has a Wikipedia page.

I keep that page saved in my bookmarks to show anyone who thinks this is some fringe or new idea. You haven’t somehow cracked the code that turns the anti-bigots into the “true bigots.”

The concept of tolerance inherently must end before it gets to the point of tolerating intolerance. Those who are pro-tolerance and anti-bigotry can’t tolerate bigotry, as that defeats the entire purpose. If we tolerate bigotry, then we can’t stop it.

So you think I’m a bigot, but you’re not?

And your justification for that is a wiki page?

[Annoyed]

@BigT

Literally no one who isn’t a troll asks that question. It, like it’s cousin “calm down,” is an attempt to piss the other person off by insisting they are angry and dismissing their argument.

You’re clearly here not to have a debate, but to try and piss others off. So, you see, we don’t have to tolerate you.

BIG t over here sure seems like he might have a little pp.

[John_DiFool]

Maybe he should change his name to Annoyed Grunt.

[GIGObuster]

@Annoyed

So you think I’m a bigot, but you’re not?

And your justification for that is a wiki page?

It has been pointed out that bigotry is an evil form of ignorance, and you show your ignorance by the boat load when you are not aware of why one should look at the cites on wikipedia when there are doubts. That page then points at:

“Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1”

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

With the entire quote extending to:

— In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

[Roderick_Femm]

And the fish just keep on biting. Buncha maroons.

[crowmanyclouds]

@Annoyed

BIG t over here sure seems like he might have a little pp.

‘Cracking out of turn’ doesn’t help you not look like a trock.

CMC fnord!

[Annoyed]

@GIGObuster

It has been pointed out that bigotry is an evil form of ignorance, and you show your ignorance by the boat load when you are not aware of why one should look at the cites on wikipedia when there are doubts. That page then points at:

“Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1”

Uh huh, and you guys seem to take that and apply it to anyone, bigot or not.

Republican/conservative does not automatically = bigot. Are there some in the party? Sure. Just like there are some in the lefty party.

It’s bigotry to alienate millions of people because you don’t like their political views. In, fact, that’s the literal definition of bigotry.

You are precisely what you hate.

[GIGObuster]

@Annoyed

Uh huh, and you guys seem to take that and apply it to anyone, bigot or not.

Republican/conservative does not automatically = bigot. Are there some in the party? Sure. Just like there are some in the lefty party.

It’s bigotry to alienate millions of people because you don’t like their political views. In, fact, that’s the literal definition of bigotry.

You are precisely what you hate.

Stupid words from a monster that supports the bigot in chief.

Donald Trump’s long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2020

The trend has continued into his presidency. From stereotyping a black reporter to pandering to white supremacists after they held a violent rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, to cracking a joke about the Trail of Tears, Trump hasn’t stopped with the racist acts after his 2016 election.

Most recently, Trump tweeted that several black and brown members of Congress are “from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe” and that they should “go back” to those countries. The tweets, aimed at Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), exemplify a common racist trope used against immigrants and minority groups who criticize US policies. Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, condemned Trump’s tweets as racist.

Republican muted response to Trump’s tweets reveals party’s ingrained racism

Republican muted response to Trump’s tweets reveals party’s ingrained racism

Trump telling four politicians of color to ‘go back’ to countries they came from shows more than just his own nativist instincts

[Monty]

@Annoyed

Uh huh, and you guys seem to take that and apply it to anyone, bigot or not.

Republican/conservative does not automatically = bigot. Are there some in the party? Sure. Just like there are some in the lefty party.

It’s bigotry to alienate millions of people because you don’t like their political views. In, fact, that’s the literal definition of bigotry.

You are precisely what you hate.

Your very first post was touting a bigoted conspiracy theory (aka lie) about a Black Muslim female member of Congress. And you think that does not mark you as a bigot?

[zoid]

@Monty

Your very first post was touting a bigoted conspiracy theory (aka lie) about a Black Muslim female member of Congress. And you think that does not mark you as a bigot?

Well to be fair he probably doesn’t see that as bigoted but merely conservative.
The two are so intertwined by some as to be indistinguishable at this point.
I do hold out hope that true conservatives are out there, biding their time, and waiting to take their party and ideology back from the brink of insanity.

[Annoyed]

@Monty

Your very first post was touting a bigoted conspiracy theory (aka lie) about a Black Muslim female member of Congress. And you think that does not mark you as a bigot?

Fail to see how that makes me a bigot, or how the topic was bigoted.

Unless of course that’s just y’alls criticism shield, which we all know it is.

People don’t dislike Omar because of her skin color or religion. People dislike Omar because of Omar, calling them bigots and racists is a pussies deflection.

It would be just as dumb as me saying you hate trump because you’re a bigot who hates white people (which in all fairness is gaining popularity in your extreme fringe)

[Annoyed]

@zoid

Well to be fair he probably doesn’t see that as bigoted but merely conservative.
The two are so intertwined by some as to be indistinguishable at this point.
I do hold out hope that true conservatives are out there, biding their time, and waiting to take their party and ideology back from the brink of insanity.

Omar is the kind of person that would watch black hawk down and cheer for the bad guys, and that shit has nothing to do with her skin color or religion. She takes flack because of her words and actions, which people don’t like, not her complexion.

But in the end I guess it’s good for the right. Put your craziest crazies front and center of your party like you’re doing while at the same time blaming the big bad right for all your problems and election losses.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Roderick_Femm

And the fish just keep on biting. Buncha maroons.

Srsly.

[Der_Trihs]

@zoid

Well to be fair he probably doesn’t see that as bigoted but merely conservative.
The two are so intertwined by some as to be indistinguishable at this point.
I do hold out hope that true conservatives are out there, biding their time, and waiting to take their party and ideology back from the brink of insanity.

The *actual *conservatives would be the mainstream Democrats. It’s been a long time since there were a significant number of Republicans who were anything but radical reactionaries and worse.