CPAC stage design - Fascists gonna Fascist

[Dill]

(03-02-2021, 07:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: They're certainly not as overt, but to claim that the left doesn't have it's own agenda going on in the MSM is pure fantasy.  As usual you are utterly blind to anything done by people other than your ideological opponents

Except you cannot use the total numbers when the vast majority of those people did not engage in unlawful activity.

No, I actually read what you write.  You're not bad at maintaining plausible deniability, but you're also not nearly as good as it as you apparently think you are.

Oh yeah, and I stand by this 100%.

Sure it does.  Your posts literally drip with these implications.  

Conversely, imagine you're the FBI and Capitol police laying out security for a second term Trump speech.  Would you then so blithely dismiss the violence routinely engaged in by the far left throughout much of 2020?  Well, we know you would, but they certainly wouldn't.

Saying posts "literally drip with implications" is just more projection. It expresses a FEELING but demonstrates nothing.

No close grammatical or semantic analysis can demonstrate the "intent" you impute to my posts.
At this point it is doubtful you even know how to do that.

So I've not not somehow maintained "plausible deniability" of a message only you can find.

Yet you just keep piling on accusations and unsupported claims, while asserting you don't like "hyperbole."

And now my easily demonstrable claim that the RWMM has disseminated and maintained Trump's Big Lie, and that there is nothing comparable in the MSM, has been turned into claim that"the left doesn't have its own agenda going on in the MSM."  Both false and beside the point.

You make these unsupported claims in thread after thread, and then remember them as "facts" going forward. That's why you can't provide examples of your "facts" when I ask for them.

[GMDino]

(03-02-2021, 11:11 PM)Dill Wrote: Saying posts "literally drip with implications" is just more projection. It expresses a FEELING but demonstrates nothing.

No close grammatical or semantic analysis can demonstrate the "intent" you impute to my posts.
At this point it is doubtful you even know how to do that.

So I've not not somehow maintained "plausible deniability" of a message only you can find.

Yet you just keep piling on accusations and unsupported claims, while asserting you don't like "hyperbole."

And now my easily demonstrable claim that the RWMM has disseminated and maintained Trump's Big Lie, and that there is nothing comparable in the MSM, has been turned into claim that"the left doesn't have its own agenda going on in the MSM."  Both false and beside the point.

You make these unsupported claims in thread after thread, and then remember them as "facts" going forward. That's why you can't provide examples of your "facts" when I ask for them.

Some people just like to argue.  Facts and sources and citation get in the way of a good emotional argument.  Stop taking the bait.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-02-2021, 10:55 PM)Dill Wrote: This from the guy who accused me of supporting ISIS because I would not call them, or any human beings, "animals."
http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Trump-on-undocumented-immigrants-These-aren-t-people-These-are-animals?page=8&highlight=ISIS+animals
And of supporting ANTIFA and MS-13.

Not exactly, but thank you for posting the thread, as I think it rather works in my favor.  It is interesting that you're very comfortable with Nazi to GOP analogies, but won't call people who rape, murder children, behead people and set people on fire in the name of their religion "animals".  An interesting set of ethics you have there.

Quote:And didn't you accuse Dino of carrying water for China when he disagreed with you on Trump's trad policies?

Yeah, when he parrots CCP talking points I'll call him out on it.

Quote:And just last week you claimed that I "consistently" dismiss ANTIFA violence. But could produce no examples.

As I said, I could, but you'd spin and twist so there's very little point.

Quote:And now you are demanding examples from others, when getting them from you is liking asking Joe McCarthy to name JUST ONE of those 200 communists in the State Department.

If you're going to make a demonstrably false claim about me, sure.

Quote:Where is "the Left's" version of Qanon, supported by elected officials?

Is Trump an elected official?

Quote:Inventing equivalences does make Nati and "others" look ridiculous.

As stated they damn sure do.  Just don't call anyone an animal though, that's a bridge too far. 

[Dill]

(03-02-2021, 11:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sociopathicsteelerfan: Not exactly, but thank you for posting the thread, as I think it rather works in my favor.  It is interesting that you're very comfortable with Nazi to GOP analogies, but won't call people who rape, murder children, behead people and set people on fire in the name of their religion "animals".  An interesting set of ethics you have there.

No. It doesn't work in your favor for two reasons:

1. First, it is a specific example of how "hyper partisan people see failure to completely agree with them as support for their opposites." In this case you are the "hyper partisan." You may have forgotten that you were accusing Nati of doing what you regularly do, as my example demonstrates.

2. One characteristic of Nazi dehumanization of others was their resort to dehumanizing terms--"animals," "vermin" etc. So no, I don't call people "who rape, murder children" etc. animals. Neither do others in this forum whom you claim to respect. Neither does any student/teacher of ethics outside of authoritarian/totalitarian political systems. (With you, I have to add that this reference to Nazi dehumanization does not say or imply that everyone who dehumanizes other humans in this fashion, such as you, is a Nazi.)

The refusal to dehumanize others in language is the norm for every ethics which refuses the dehumanization of others.

(03-02-2021, 11:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, when he parrots CCP talking points I'll call him out on it.
As I said, I could, but you'd spin and twist so there's very little point.
If you're going to make a demonstrably false claim about me, sure.
Is Trump an elected official?
As stated they damn sure do.  Just don't call anyone an animal though, that's a bridge too far. 

No CCP talking points. Yet another example of YOU doing what you accused Nati of doing, your "hyper partisan people see failure to completely agree with them as support for their opposites."  On that same thread my views were different from Dinos, but you called me "intellectually dishonest" for failing to agree with you.

If there is no point in backing your accusations with PROOF,
then there is no legitimate or ethical point in making such accusations in the first place.
People only do that when accusations are the point, not the (non-existent) proof.

Accusing people who do provide proof of "spin and twist" when you cannot provide proof is just another example of spin and twist.

Here's the pattern: you make a series of unsupportable accusations.
When support is called for, you begin accusing others of your spin and twist.

Thus talk of others "hyperbole" and "tinfoil hats" remains just hyperbole.
No substance whatsoever.

[Dill]

(03-02-2021, 11:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: Some people just like to argue.  Facts and sources and citation get in the way of a good emotional argument.  Stop taking the bait.

His "arguments" are so easy to refute though. 

That's the temptation.

It's kind of like the courts dealing with Trump lawsuits in the post truth era.

They're frivolous and can't make it past any evidentiary protocols,
but jeez there are so many, and they just keep coming . . . .

But its "fraud" if you don't take each one seriously.

[GMDino]

(03-03-2021, 02:03 AM)Dill Wrote: His "arguments" are so easy to refute though. 

That's the temptation.

It's kind of like the courts dealing with Trump lawsuits in the post truth era.

They're frivolous and can't make it past any evidentiary protocols,
but jeez there are so many, and they just keep coming . . . .

But its "fraud" if you don't take each one seriously.

Refute yes, convince no.

Just like Trump still doesn't believe he lost...just like millions of his fans don't believe he lost.  Some people are immune to truth when it involves themselves.  It is something we are all guilty of on some level its just that a few are so convinced they are always right that it leads to nothing when we try correct them...or even question them.  Nothing good will come from trying to find out where Trump or his diehard supporters are "coming from" with their views.  Same with this. 

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to...sometimes its best to leave them screaming into the void and just stay on the topic.

On the topic:  poor planning and accidental white supremacist imagery coming from CPAC isn't a surprise to me.

[Dill]

(03-03-2021, 09:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: Refute yes, convince no.

Just like Trump still doesn't believe he lost...just like millions of his fans don't believe he lost.  Some people are immune to truth when it involves themselves.  It is something we are all guilty of on some level its just that a few are so convinced they are always right that it leads to nothing when we try correct them...or even question them.  Nothing good will come from trying to find out where Trump or his diehard supporters are "coming from" with their views.  Same with this. 

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to...sometimes its best to leave them screaming into the void and just stay on the topic.

On the topic:  poor planning and accidental white supremacist imagery coming from CPAC isn't a surprise to me.

Something more than that here--the deflection/inversion is systematic. Learned behavior.
The mere claim of spin becomes "proof" of spin.

But I take your point about staying on topic.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

You boys enjoy each other. Dill, your myopic claims of victory are amusing, but predictable. I suppose at this point it's all you've got left.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-03-2021, 01:58 AM)Dill Wrote: No. It doesn't work in your favor for two reasons:

1. First, it is a specific example of how "hyper partisan people see failure to completely agree with them as support for their opposites." In this case you are the "hyper partisan." You may have forgotten that you were accusing Nati of doing what you regularly do, as my example demonstrates.

I don't think you understand what partisan means.  In this case it would apparently mean being against people who rape, murder children, set people on fire, etc.  I am, you would be correct, hyper against those types of people.

Quote:2. One characteristic of Nazi dehumanization of others was their resort to dehumanizing terms--"animals," "vermin" etc. So no, I don't call people "who rape, murder children" etc. animals. Neither do others in this forum whom you claim to respect. Neither does any student/teacher of ethics outside of authoritarian/totalitarian political systems. (With you, I have to add that this reference to Nazi dehumanization does not say or imply that everyone who dehumanizes other humans in this fashion, such as you, is a Nazi.)

The refusal to dehumanize others in language is the norm for every ethics which refuses the dehumanization of others.

I do, because they are.  I am not on a campaign to label them anything, I am one guy on a message board sub forum that maybe has ~40 unique users at this point (the reasons for this being amusing given the current conversation).  I will absolutely label any human who engages in the type of behavior ISIS does/did on a routine basis as animals.  You don't, which is certainly your prerogative, but you are clearly very comfortable with broad generalizations about other groups.

Quote:No CCP talking points. Yet another example of YOU doing what you accused Nati of doing, your "hyper partisan people see failure to completely agree with them as support for their opposites."  On that same thread my views were different from Dinos, but you called me "intellectually dishonest" for failing to agree with you.

Yes, CCP talking points.  When you parrot the exact same argument being spouted by the CCP that's exactly what you are doing.

Quote:If there is no point in backing your accusations with PROOF,
then there is no legitimate or ethical point in making such accusations in the first place.
People only do that when accusations are the point, not the (non-existent) proof.

Miss me with this bullshit.  I can see why you like Fred, you both indulge in this same game.  I gave you tons of proof in the discussion about Joy Reid.  You ignored over 90% of it, because it hurt your argument, and focused on the small fraction you could slightly nitpick.  Be honest, you have a massive blind spot when it comes to bad actions by people you agree with.  You're infamous for it.

Quote:Accusing people who do provide proof of "spin and twist" when you cannot provide proof is just another example of spin and twist.

See above.

Quote:Here's the pattern: you make a series of unsupportable accusations.
When support is called for, you begin accusing others of your spin and twist.

Here's the pattern.  You ask for proof.  You get proof.  You ignore proof.  Then you get accused of spinning and twisting.

Quote:Thus talk of others "hyperbole" and "tinfoil hats" remains just hyperbole.
No substance whatsoever.

Again, miss me with this as it is demonstrably false.  One need only look at the Rush Limbaugh thread to see you engage in exactly what you deny and me doing exactly what you claim I do not.


You're a base hypocrite and as one sided as they come.  You can attempt to cover it up with pontificating posts full of irrelevancies and flowery academic language, more designed to look impressive than to inform, but at the end of the day you're a tired pedant who is blind to their own flaws and those of the people they agree with.  

[Mickeypoo]

(02-27-2021, 02:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Even assuming your point about the GOP is true, which it is not, this is demonstrably false.  The antifa losers largely protest in cities heavily Democratic and against the governments there.  They hate anyone who doesn't adhere to their particular view on everything.  They're scum and I'm tired of people mitigating just how shitty they are.  Both antifa and the far right can both suck, it's not an either/or situation.


This is hyperbolic, seeing as how there is pretty much zero chance this design was intentional in the way you state.  Seriously, everyone has lost their mind at this point.  I almost literally have to stop listening to everyone to maintain my sanity.

Word!  People straight going mental!  This s@#t is beyond comical.

[Mickeypoo]

(02-27-2021, 07:11 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Right...

So a lot of you probably think I’m wearing a tinfoil hat for thinking the conman’s words have helped cause a rise in hate crimes against Asians too.

I do.......

Funny thing.......I voted for Trump, I also support Biden.  I don't feel the need to call Biden or his supporters names or say they are a cult.  It's called respecting the office of the Presidency, showing people with different political opinions respect and not rooting against your own Country.

[Mickeypoo]

(03-02-2021, 02:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually that is Tucker Carlson and FOXNews game.  

Whenever any talks about cracking down on the dangerous alt-right radicals who planned to kidnap Whitmer or who acted violently on January 6 Carlson claims they are talking about "All Republicans" or "Trump supporters".  That is his favorite bullshit line to lump everyone who voted for Trump into the pile of domestic terrorists so that EVERYONE can cry about how their rights are under attack.

CNN and MSNBC really held those "peaceful protesters" accountable.  I mean, they only destroyed small businesses and took over part of Portland.  Nothing to see here kids, move along.  But ya, the Capital riot.   Whatever.

[Dill]

(03-03-2021, 12:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:If there is no point in backing your accusations with PROOF,
then there is no legitimate or ethical point in making such accusations in the first place.
People only do that when accusations are the point, not the (non-existent) proof.

Miss me with this bullshit.  I can see why you like Fred, you both indulge in this same game.  I gave you tons of proof in the discussion about Joy Reid.  You ignored over 90% of it, because it hurt your argument, and focused on the small fraction you could slightly nitpick.  Be honest, you have a massive blind spot when it comes to bad actions by people you agree with.  You're infamous for it.
See above.
Here's the pattern.  You ask for proof.  You get proof.  You ignore proof.  Then you get accused of spinning and twisting.
Again, miss me with this as it is demonstrably false.  One need only look at the Rush Limbaugh thread to see you engage in exactly what you deny and me doing exactly what you claim I do not.
You're a base hypocrite and as one sided as they come.  You can attempt to cover it up with pontificating posts full of irrelevancies and flowery academic language, more designed to look impressive than to inform, but at the end of the day you're a tired pedant who is blind to their own flaws and those of the people they agree with.  

For the record, and as a point of principle--you can cite no post on the Limbaugh thread in which "[I] engage in exactly what [I]deny" nor any showing that you do "exactly what [I] claim you do not."  And if you could, that wouldn't undo your behavior here.

There you were flagged by a third party for continually going off topic with your "tons of proof" that Reid made bigoted statements 10 years ago, which no one ever disputed. Then you blamed me for sending you off topic, though in four separate posts I had urged you to return. You cannot simply revise your own record like this when there is, well, a record: http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Rush-Limbaugh-has-died-at-70?page=6&highlight=limbaugh

One more point of principle: You have assigned yourself the task of calling out "bigotry." But I confess I don't find your outrage at all authentic.

The ethical ground which condemns bigotry is the same one which condemns ad hominem/personal attack, viz. the baseless, unnecessary demeaning of one's fellow humans.  If you constantly practice the latter, then your condemnation of bigotry is only strategic and ad hoc.

[Dill]

(03-03-2021, 12:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think you understand what partisan means.  In this case it would apparently mean being against people who rape, murder children, set people on fire, etc.  I am, you would be correct, hyper against those types of people.

I do, because they are.  I am not on a campaign to label them anything, I am one guy on a message board sub forum that maybe has ~40 unique users at this point (the reasons for this being amusing given the current conversation).  I will absolutely label any human who engages in the type of behavior ISIS does/did on a routine basis as animals.  You don't, which is certainly your prerogative, but you are clearly very comfortable with broad generalizations about other groups.

One sentence you defend your right to label groups "animals." In the next you tell me I am "clearly very comfortable with broad generalizations of other groups. You really can't see when you are doing it.

In any case, "broad generalizations" are useful and generally unproblematic. Hasty/faulty generalizations are the problem.

And our disagreement was never about your right to label other humans animals. It's about you calling me an ISIS supporter if I refused to apply dehumanizing language to other humans. The "hyper-partisanship" manifests itself here not against ISIS, but against an American citizen who was/is not an ISIS supporter.

You told Nati "hyper partisan people see failure to completely agree with them as support for their opposites."

And I then provided multiple examples of you seeing failure to completely agree with you as support for China or ISIS or ANTIFA or MS-13.

Defending your right to label is a diversion, just pretending that's what the argument was about.

[Dill]

(03-03-2021, 01:32 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I do.......

Funny thing.......I voted for Trump, I also support Biden.  I don't feel the need to call Biden or his supporters names or say they are a cult.  It's called respecting the office of the Presidency, showing people with different political opinions respect and not rooting against your own Country.

Mick, one problem nowadays is that it is difficult to tell what counts as "rooting against your own country."

E.g., I think that is exactly what Trump was doing when he sent a mob to the Capitol to disrupt a peaceful transition of power, and then tweet-targeted Pence during the subsequent riots.  https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-tweeted-attack-mike-pence-minutes-capitol-rioters-1568568

If Trump supporters/voters say that they would attack the Capitol or sacrifice their lives on Trump's order,
the term "cult" could be descriptive, couldn't it? 

Trump's behavior complicated every citizen's task of "respecting the office of the presidency," didn't it?

[fredtoast]

(03-03-2021, 01:47 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: CNN and MSNBC really held those "peaceful protesters" accountable.  I mean, they only destroyed small businesses and took over part of Portland.  Nothing to see here kids, move along.  But ya, the Capital riot.   Whatever.

I have no idea what you are talking about.  CNN literally ran hundreds of stories about the mob violence and destruction.

I don't pay attention to MSNBC, but if you want to make  sig bet I am sure i could provide dozens of stories on MSNBC about the destruction and violence.

Seriously, I am starting to believe you are playing some sort of game.  No one could possibly be that clueless about what has been reported in the news over the last year.

[Lucidus]

(03-03-2021, 01:32 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I do.......

Funny thing.......I voted for Trump, I also support Biden.  I don't feel the need to call Biden or his supporters names or say they are a cult.  It's called respecting the office of the Presidency, showing people with different political opinions respect and not rooting against your own Country.

I find it rather curious that one can claim to be patriotic and supporting the office of the POTUS, while at the same time voting for a man who constantly and intentionally attempted to subvert the very democratic systems, institutions and voting processes that the country is based upon.

To claim for yourself a sense of patriotism by voting for a person who incited sedition, fanned the flames of racism and lied at a rate that was flabbergasting, even for a politician, seems to be disingenuous at best.

If one were to sincerely wish to be patriotic and respectful of the Office, it would seem to reasonably follow that they could not -- in good conscience -- vote for a candidate that is the very antithesis of those things. 

[TheUberHuber]

(03-03-2021, 01:32 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I do.......

Funny thing.......I voted for Trump, I also support Biden.  I don't feel the need to call Biden or his supporters names or say they are a cult.  It's called respecting the office of the Presidency, showing people with different political opinions respect and not rooting against your own Country.

You think people who won't admit they lost an election and instigated a riot on the capital deserve respect? Ha, think again pal.