Pitting Urbanredneck for making shit up and claiming it's facts

“Something something something totally untrue. What do you folks think about that?” - urbanredneck
“We love to be trolled and will happily accept your bait.” - the entire fucking SDMB

Ha! Yeah, that’s about right. Dance, SDMB, dance!

I’m as guilty as the rest. He’s so dumb that I fall into the trap that maybe I can convince him of something, change his mind, but it never works out. I’ll just ignore his threads from now on.

To be fair, a garbage, bad-faith OP can still lead to good discussion. Not through any fault of its author.


Ah, but here, we can watch his arguments be dissected and destroyed by literally dozens of intelligent people using facts , and only a few equally brain dead supporters go ‘but . . . .but . . . people say’. Where else other than the SMDB do we get this joy? Elsewhere, providing cites for your argument and facts get you nothing more than accusations of ‘false news’ even if you’re quoting from the other poster’s own side.
And of course, we have the PIT where we can still enjoy child-like snark at the bad faith poster. So double win.

Also, not everyone who comes across such threads is necessarily a well informed SD regular. It is important to demolish his speculations as a public service. So that when some poor benighted soul finds their way here after searching “Harris not eligible” we can set them straight.

A thread about absent fathers? I predict that the father of this thread will put in his usual performance - drop his turd and never show up again.

I actually hate this rationalization, it’s so paternalistic and smug, supposing that no-one but us SDMB smarties has the good sense to see through the BS that these shit-stirrers post. Oh noes, we has to protect the poor ignorant masses from the corruption of Urbanredneck’s nonsense. Give me a break.

Look whose thread got closed, partly due to suspicion that the OP is trolling.

I wasnt trolling. I saw this come thru on Facebook and I thought it would make an interesting topic for discussion. About 30 responses in about 3 hours is quite alot.

To me this would be an unprecedented act in American history. For all of American history the change from one administration to another has always gone well with photo ops of the next first lady having tea with the current one and the new president shaking hands with the old ones and presidents before that.

I think this would be a bad idea going forward.

I’ll admit I dont have alot of time for discussion. Most of the time others make my points anyways.

I’m not aware of any other posters on this board that are such complete fucking morons that they could adequately substitute in for your addled brain, you fucking imbecile.

It would be an interesting topic, but you made it about the fictional idea of locking up millions of Americans for supporting Trump, which had nothing to do with the article you linked to.

Ok, fair enough. Should I have just stuck with what Reich said?

Hmmm… that’s a stumper. Should you stick to the facts or make up a tall pile of bullshit? Tough one that.

Dang! Is that the first time a mod has closed a thread and linked to a Pit thread about a poster?

The mod didn’t link to it. The link was automatically inserted by Discourse because Skywatcher linked to the post here.

Dude, the link is from The Blaze. That alone means that you need to make a case for it being worthwhile to click on. You didn’t, nobody else did, so speaking for myself, I didn’t bother.

Finally read that thread, and am wondering whether urbanredneck2 has ever experienced similar concerns at any point in the past 4-5 years while watching Donald Trump - the current president - standing in front of crowds of his supporters chanting “Lock Her/Him Up!” or encouraging them to hate and even assault protesters, Democrats and the media?

I mean, if we’re going to worry about what the likes of Olbermann, Behar and Random Twitter Guy are saying, how much more should we worry when the person actually in charge of the federal government is repeating and promoting such rhetoric and behavior?

It would certainly be helpful to understand what criteria we’re working with here.

Dude. Calling for your opponent in a general election to be imprisoned based on a fake scandal is a bad idea. Doing it two elections in a row is a bad idea. Telling white supremacist thugs to stand by is a bad idea. Refusing to commit to a peaceful transition of power is a bad idea. Start some fucking threads about those bad ideas.

But committing to letting the Justice Department, without interference, investigate potential crimes committed by members of a previous administration? That’s a really fucking good idea. Our leaders should be accountable for their actions while in office. We’re not a monarchy.

Your thread was a shitfire, because you fundamentally misrepresented what was being said. Don’t do that.

(Courtesy of Whack-a-Mole in a different thread):