I’m not sure if they are an actual troll, but phillyguy is getting on my last nerve. The nonsense this person spews in defense of Trump is ridiculous.
Every time he expresses concern that holding Trump accountable for anything will hurt Biden in the future, I just want to tell him to pull the other one cause I don’t think you’re fooling anyone.
So anyway, now that that’s out of my system, I can feel my blood pressure going down already. Whew.
Eh, we need people to try to defend the undefendable… both this Board and the country. I like PG for this very reason.
Sometimes his commentary though veers into the insulting, as when he dismissed Trump’s calling for Milley to be executed as “well, he didn’t say EXECUTE HIM”, or whatever. No, and “will no one rid me of this troublesome priest” didn’t specifically say “kill the guy”, but guess what happened?
Not getting a troll vibe yet from PG. We shall see what the future brings.
He’s not a troll. Jeez.
I think he’s effectively a troll. I don’t doubt his sincerity, but he continuously pollutes the Trump threads with some version of “the only way we can save the rule of law is if we ignore it for Trump.”
He advances some of the most asinine theories in support, and our reality-based posters can’t resist reacting, often sputtering over the idiocy. Another favorite of his is to provide a cite that supports his assertion, but only if you squint and ignore a couple of non sequiturs.
Then we have to spend 20 or 30 posts with the moronic derailment. So, he serves all the purposes of a troll, which is close enough.
Hmm. PG is kind of a dummy who is transparent in his attempts to make his extremely Republican beliefs seem reasonable and palatable for this audience, but he’s not a troll.
I forget where but PG is admittedly a conservative, albeit one for whom Trump was a bridge too far.
Some unconscious bias sometimes is not unsurprising. Not a troll - just has blindspots, like we all do. Though maybe needs better glasses. Most of us try to do better with our blindspots
I’m not sure this is true. I’ve never seen this use outside of your post. On the contrary, I’ve seen plenty of opinion pieces talking about the supergross alliance between TERFs and the religious right.
chela comes across as much closer to the religious right (which, weirdly, includes some irreligious people at this point, who reject the supernatural elements of religion but jump all over the sexual taboos). I’ve yet to see anything that aligns with feminism from her posts.
Yes, not a troll, because they’re trying to be convincing, not provocative. They’re the type of right wing poster we want to have on the board. I’ve only seen honest engagement from them.
Generally agree, with the slight caveat that he visibly dances around on certain topics and soft-pedals certain conclusions in order to avoid revealing just how conservative he really is, because he fears that this would cause mockery and derision on other subjects outside political debates (cf. octopus and to a lesser extent Sam Stone). But this is for the purpose of being legitimately persuasive on his honestly held beliefs, as you say, not for trolling.
Which is not to say that those honest beliefs are defensible, per the head-scratching argument that an acquittal in an impeachment proceeding attaches double jeopardy protection against actual criminal prosecution. Hence my comment above that he’s not a troll but he can be a real dummy.
PG frustrates the HELL out of me, but I would not want him gone from the board. I do think he’s sincere. He’s one of the rare examples of someone on the board with a different political perspective who isn’t here just to troll. The majority of conservatives will only come to a board like this because they want to cause trouble. He doesn’t.
I don’t buy the argument that you have to bend over backward and accept all kinds of horrid behavior to guarantee a balance on the board. That philosophy has caused a lot of disruption over the years. But I do think that when we have someone who leans the other way, you don’t want to scare them off either as long as they aren’t being an asshole.
Hmm…I’d put Falchion and WalterBishop into that category, with a lot less nonsense from either of them that I’ve seen. PhillyGuy presents a lot weaker arguments, a lot more often. #Notatroll, but kinda frustrating.
Not a troll. Just kind of dumb. But that’s not a crime, especially when open to sincere debate and disagreement. Sure, that can be frustrating sometimes, but we can’t all be Nobel Prize winners
That’s a contradiction in terms. This forum does not need conservatives.
I haven’t been following such threads, but I’m pretty sure that J K Rowling has been accused of being a TERF, but not of being a Radical Feminist.
I welcome correction if I am mistaken.
Yes it does. What it doesn’t need are radical reactionaries.
Nothing radical about anti-fascism.
Would you elaborate, please? I’m having difficulty parsing your post so it seems like a follow-on to mine.
I have no idea who you consider radical reactionaries (which is a bit confusing on its own, because radicalism is often used as shorthand for the left, while reactionary generally implies a right-wing movement—but perhaps my understanding is idiosyncratic), I just want to make clear that anti-fascism is actually a moderate position, and something very much needed.
As opposed to conservatives, who are very much aligned with the American fascist movement that is MAGA, and so are neither, to my mind, needed nor desired.
I believe it’s an attempt to replace the “conservative” label. Because they aren’t really “conservative”. (Because as we all know, in the English language every word only has one definition.)
It’s like trying to empty the Nile with a paper cup.