Politics and Religion

[hollodero]

(03-04-2021, 11:46 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Anyone else find it fascinsting that the person sqealing about bullies still has not provided a single specific example to back up his false claim?

You're actually bullying people. First and foremost by, in very thinly disguised manner, painting people as dumb.

I'm not really judging though, I have my own mistakes. This whole bickering is just fascinating, that took over my thread and so many threads past. No content, no goal, no purpose, just an ongoing variation of "you again? grrrr!"

I called Trump a religious phenomena, but of course he's also a phenomena of this climate.

[fredtoast]

(03-04-2021, 01:13 PM)hollodero Wrote: You're actually bullying people. First and foremost by, in very thinly disguised manner, painting people as dumb.

I was not calling him dumb. I was claiming that he was intentionally misleading.

And i was not attacking an opinion. I was attaking something that he claimed was a pprovble fact.

There is no need to even have a discussion if it is "wrong" to point out that a person is just making shit up.

[hollodero]

(03-04-2021, 01:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I was not calling him dumb. I was claiming that he was intentionally misleading.

Didn't mean to say you were calling him dumb.

You talked about missing examples of bullying though, as if there were none to be had. I disagree with that. On the grounds that quite some people, including you, have a tendency to paint others as being unintelligent. And I can very well imagine that some avoid these parts of the board for that very reason, for a flood of disrespect they need to expect, or have experienced.

There are also instances where people are painted as racist, which can amount to bullying as well, especially if the accusation is far-fetched. Case in point, I think you once bullied Mickeypoo.

I don't even mean to single anyone out... it's the climate. The bullying one might see, imho with some extent of validity, is mainly due to a liberal majority here. If there were a conservative majority, things would not be any better in that regard.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-04-2021, 01:43 PM)hollodero Wrote: Didn't mean to say you were calling him dumb.

You talked about missing examples of bullying though, as if there were none to be had. I disagree with that. On the grounds that quite some people, including you, have a tendency to paint others as being unintelligent. And I can very well imagine that some avoid these parts of the board for that very reason, for a flood of disrespect they need to expect, or have experienced.

There are also instances where people are painted as racist, which can amount to bullying as well, especially if the accusation is far-fetched. Case in point, I think you once bullied Mickeypoo.

I don't even mean to single anyone out... it's the climate. The bullying one might see, imho with some extent of validity, is mainly due to a liberal majority here. If there were a conservative majority, things would not be any better in that regard.

You have no idea how correct you are here.  The P&R forum used to be dominated by some pretty hard core, and IMO obnoxious, conservatives such as GA9, Dabo and Sloppy Lombardi Slaps.  In fact it got so bad that a group was formed to combat it, called the Mutual Admiration Society, named for a frequently used insult by GA9.  It was, in essence the exact same thing we have now just from the other end of the spectrum.  Thankfully back then there were enough of us united in our dislike for this and we were able to push back.  And for quite some time we had a pretty nice balance here.  Eventually some of the "now regulars" here started posting in P&R, and started enacting the same climate, just from the other end of the spectrum.  This is why I went from being considered a California liberal to a Trump supporting hard core conservative by some

It's liable to get to the point in which only a handful of posters will even deign to respond to each other. 

[Dill]

(03-04-2021, 01:43 PM)hollodero Wrote: Didn't mean to say you were calling him dumb.

You talked about missing examples of bullying though, as if there were none to be had. I disagree with that. On the grounds that quite some people, including you, have a tendency to paint others as being unintelligent. And I can very well imagine that some avoid these parts of the board for that very reason, for a flood of disrespect they need to expect, or have experienced.

There are also instances where people are painted as racist, which can amount to bullying as well, especially if the accusation is far-fetched. Case in point, I think you once bullied Mickeypoo.

I don't even mean to single anyone out... it's the climate. The bullying one might see, imho with some extent of validity, is mainly due to a liberal majority here. If there were a conservative majority, things would not be any better in that regard.

Point of clarification: Fred was asking for examples, not of bullying per se, but of posters who actually left the forum because of bullying, as SSF claims. If you haven't provided any, there are still none to be had. Only SSF's speculation, which grounds his "liberal bullies" narrative.

Fred is asking for examples because SSF regularly accuses other posters of statements and behaviors which, shall we say, are not supported by the record. When asked for proof, for examples, quotations, whatever, he does not provide it, but keeps circulating the accusations anyway, as if repetition makes them true.     No   one    else     does     this.

And actually, you are "singling out" by omission, by choice of whom to "call out" for bullying among the available candidates.

So no surprise that your post was promptly endorsed by the poster who most frequently and without provocation denigrates the intelligence and honesty of others. Not "paints," not "thinly disguised"--but outright. Thread after thread after thread, including this one. There's the better example of your "flood of disrespect."

And your post was not simply endorsed, but folded into his narrative of liberal bullies responsible for driving poor conservatives from the forum: you and he now, positioned against those toxic others out there--"It's liable to get to the point in which only a handful of posters will even deign to respond to each other."

I don't think you want to join any group. And you haven't. And you've not been demeaning others. But when someone who personally and repeatedly attacks other posters, then wants to cast THEM as a mob of bullies threatening the good order of the forum, I do expect you to recognize that dynamic.

[fredtoast]

(03-04-2021, 01:43 PM)hollodero Wrote: You talked about missing examples of bullying though, as if there were none to be had. 

No.  I asked for examples of posters who left here because they felt bullied.

I have never denied that people try to bully others here.  SSF regularly calls me a liar and makes personal attacks against me and Dil (and yes I can post specific examples if you want).  I was also repeatedly told I suffered from a mental illness (TRS) when I criticized the Donald.

But I don't know of anyone here from either side who left because they felt bullied.  Anyone who goes to an internet message board for political discussion understands how they work.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-04-2021, 03:50 PM)Dill Wrote: Point of clarification: Fred was asking for examples, not of bullying per se, but of posters who actually left the forum because of bullying, as SSF claims. If you haven't provided any, there are still none to be had. Only SSF's speculation, which grounds his "liberal bullies" narrative.

Fred is asking for examples because SSF regularly accuses other posters of statements and behaviors which, shall we say, are not supported by the record. When asked for proof, for examples, quotations, whatever, he does not provide it, but keeps circulating the accusations anyway, as if repetition makes them true.     No   one    else     does     this.

And actually, you are "singling out" by omission, by choice of whom to "call out" for bullying among the available candidates.

So no surprise that your post was promptly endorsed by the poster who most frequently and without provocation denigrates the intelligence and honesty of others. Not "paints," not "thinly disguised"--but outright. Thread after thread after thread, including this one. There's the better example of your "flood of disrespect."

And your post was not simply endorsed, but folded into his narrative of liberal bullies responsible for driving poor conservatives from the forum: you and he now, positioned against those toxic others out there--"It's liable to get to the point in which only a handful of posters will even deign to respond to each other."

I don't think you want to join any group. And you haven't. And you've not been demeaning others. But when someone who personally and repeatedly attacks other posters, then wants to cast THEM as a mob of bullies threatening the good order of the forum, I do expect you to recognize that dynamic.

It must really bother you that no one outside your group is buying this.  Interesting though that Hollodero, who everyone agrees is a rational poster, sees evidence of Fred's behavior that I've called out repeatedly that you claim to have never witnessed.  Very interesting.  As to this line of discussion, I think the point has been made so I'll leave it at that.  Apologies to Hollo for the derailment.

[fredtoast]

(03-04-2021, 01:43 PM)hollodero Wrote: Didn't mean to say you were calling him dumb.

You talked about missing examples of bullying though, as if there were none to be had. I disagree with that. On the grounds that quite some people, including you, have a tendency to paint others as being unintelligent. And I can very well imagine that some avoid these parts of the board for that very reason, for a flood of disrespect they need to expect, or have experienced.

There are also instances where people are painted as racist, which can amount to bullying as well, especially if the accusation is far-fetched. Case in point, I think you once bullied Mickeypoo.

I don't even mean to single anyone out... it's the climate. The bullying one might see, imho with some extent of validity, is mainly due to a liberal majority here. If there were a conservative majority, things would not be any better in that regard.

What is your position on SSF repeatedly calling me a liar and saying I have no integrity?  Why don't you consider that "bullying"?

What about when he mischaracterizes peoples statements and then refuses to ever post examples when called out for it?

How can you say the bullying is due to a liberal majority?  The act of bullying has nothing to do with the number of people doing it.  It is either bully behavior or it isn't.

[hollodero]

(03-04-2021, 03:50 PM)Dill Wrote: Point of clarification: Fred was asking for examples, not of bullying per se, but of posters who actually left the forum because of bullying, as SSF claims. If you haven't provided any, there are still none to be had. Only SSF's speculation, which grounds his "liberal bullies" narrative.

Alright, I did indeed not have any. Still had an opinion about all that and considered naming names a not so important part.

Why SSF won't name names, I don't know. Might be he can't think of one, might be that he does not want to expose someone.

Also I thought Mickey had left and I would have understood it, for he got things said to him that imho bordered bullying. I had that example to share. But alas, he's back again, so probably he doesn't count.

(03-04-2021, 03:50 PM)Dill Wrote: Fred is asking for examples because SSF regularly accuses other posters of statements and behaviors which, shall we say, are not supported by the record. When asked for proof, for examples, quotations, whatever, he does not provide it, but keeps circulating the accusations anyway, as if repetition makes them true.     No   one    else     does     this.

And actually, you are "singling out" by omission, by choice of whom to "call out" for bullying among the available candidates.

Well. For one, I often addressed pretty much everyone with my remarks. Most often, it does not apply to Bels, and then some others. I said quite a few times that I do not consider you much of a culprit too.
Admittedly, I have a higher passion to single out people that apparently only consider everyone else the problem when this imho clearly is not so clear cut. Might SSF qualify for that, I don't really think so. I got the impression he does not see himself as perfect beyond doubt either. I'm fine with you disagreeing.

- Also, I must have called statements of SSF hyperbolic a thousand times now. And I already got sucked into (ok, might have been my own fault) into this more specific conversation once, and I don't think I deliberatley omitted SSF or treated him with velvet gloves in any way. And I did not do so here. There's an aspect regarding bullying I just happen to have a similar viewpoint on, or a similar observation on. To a point and not totally, which I think I made clear in roughly a thousand words or so too.

Regarding your ongoing quarrels with him. I have to admit. I usually skip those conversations. They are not really pleasant or entertaining to me. So I just cannot pass judgment one way or another, or who's more at fault for these ongoing escalations. When it was still SFF vs. Dino, I thought it to be roughly a 50/50 split that made neither look particularly good. Told SSF that as well, with specific examples and everything. Sorry for not being able to do so again, I just can't go through these point-by-point altercations that gets produced between you two.
But the overall issue goes beyond you two anyway.

(03-04-2021, 03:50 PM)Dill Wrote: And your post was not simply endorsed, but folded into his narrative of liberal bullies responsible for driving poor conservatives from the forum: you and he now, positioned against those toxic others out there--"It's liable to get to the point in which only a handful of posters will even deign to respond to each other."

For one, I somewhat agree with the bolded. I don't want to pass blame for that to one person or another, it's just what it appears to be. The core of my post was that it's the overall climate that is to blame.

I sure won't take issue with SSF agreeing with my posts.

(03-04-2021, 03:50 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think you want to join any group. And you haven't. But when someone who personally and repeatedly attacks other posters, then wants to cast THEM as a mob of bullies threatening the good order of the forum, I do expect you to recognize that dynamic.

Well, one person can't be a mob. Think of it what you will, but he does not gang up and usually acts as a lone wolf. That he's not fond of your posts, or fred's posts, well aside from the merits to me that's not bullying someone out.
I most certainly don't endorse all of his ways to express things. And I said so many times in the past. I mean, I personally can't complain, he never said anything belittling or offensive to me, which is less than happened the other way round. I am not pitch perfect either and don't want to be the referee or put myself beyond all fault in the first place. I sure see him saying stuff that I would deem over the top. I see him getting responses that I deem over the top too. Many conversations and words tend to be lead in an overly dismissive, overly offensive, overly belittling tone, and SSF gets a lot of that thrown at him, but nope he is no saint in that regard either. Didn't feel the need to specifically state that, but apparently you want me to, so there. It's not like this is a secret.

I don't need to pander to anyone, and may not please anyone. Not SSF, not you, or whoever. I could tell him more often when I disagree with his choice of words, sure, but I don't want to do so all the time. Just as I usually would not have wanted to tell you that I feel at times you appear a bit patronizing. You already got each other to tell each other that permanently.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-04-2021, 05:50 PM)hollodero Wrote: Alright, I did indeed not have any. Still had an opinion about all that and considered naming names a not so important part.

Why SSF won't name names, I don't know. Might be he can't think of one, might be that he does not want to expose someone.

Also I thought Mickey had left and I would have understood it, for he got things said to him that imho bordered bullying. I had that example to share. But alas, he's back again, so probably he doesn't count.



Well. For one, I often addressed pretty much everyone with my remarks. Most often, it does not apply to Bels, and then some others. I said quite a few times that I do not consider you much of a culprit too.
Admittedly, I have a higher passion to single out people that apparently only consider everyone else the problem when this imho clearly is not so clear cut. Might SSF qualify for that, I don't really think so. I got the impression he does not see himself as perfect beyond doubt either. I'm fine with you disagreeing.

- Also, I must have called statements of SSF hyperbolic a thousand times now. And I already got sucked into (ok, might have been my own fault) into this more specific conversation once, and I don't think I deliberatley omitted SSF or treated him with velvet gloves in any way. And I did not do so here. There's an aspect regarding bullying I just happen to have a similar viewpoint on, or a similar observation on. To a point and not totally, which I think I made clear in roughly a thousand words or so too.

Regarding your ongoing quarrels with him. I have to admit. I usually skip those conversations. They are not really pleasant or entertaining to me. So I just cannot pass judgment one way or another, or who's more at fault for these ongoing escalations. When it was still SFF vs. Dino, I thought it to be roughly a 50/50 split that made neither look particularly good. Told SSF that as well, with specific examples and everything. Sorry for not being able to do so again, I just can't go through these point-by-point altercations that gets produced between you two.
But the overall issue goes beyond you two anyway.



For one, I somewhat agree with the bolded. I don't want to pass blame for that to one person or another, it's just what it appears to be. The core of my post was that it's the overall climate that is to blame.

I sure won't take issue with SSF agreeing with my posts.



Well, one person can't be a mob. Think of it what you will, but he does not gang up and usually acts as a lone wolf. That he's not fond of your posts, or fred's posts, well aside from the merits to me that's not bullying someone out.
I most certainly don't endorse all of his ways to express things. And I said so many times in the past. I mean, I personally can't complain, he never said anything belittling or offensive to me, which is less than happened the other way round. I am not pitch perfect either and don't want to be the referee or put myself beyond all fault in the first place. I sure see him saying stuff that I would deem over the top. I see him getting responses that I deem over the top too. Many conversations and words tend to be lead in an overly dismissive, overly offensive, overly belittling tone, and SSF gets a lot of that thrown at him, but nope he is no saint in that regard either. Didn't feel the need to specifically state that, but apparently you want me to, so there. It's not like this is a secret.

I don't need to pander to anyone, and may not please anyone. Not SSF, not you, or whoever. I could tell him more often when I disagree with his choice of words, sure, but I don't want to do so all the time. Just as I usually would not have wanted to tell you that I feel at times you appear a bit patronizing. You already got each other to tell each other that permanently.

There's pretty much nothing in this post I disagree with.  Well stated.

[hollodero]

(03-04-2021, 04:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  I asked for examples of posters who left here because they felt bullied.

I have never denied that people try to bully others here.  SSF regularly calls me a liar and makes personal attacks against me and Dil (and yes I can post specific examples if you want).  I was also repeatedly told I suffered from a mental illness (TRS) when I criticized the Donald.

But I don't know of anyone here from either side who left because they felt bullied.  Anyone who goes to an internet message board for political discussion understands how they work.

TDS, yeah I was told that as well. I usually had quite a lot to say about that. SSF was not amongst those who did say that to me though, and I guess this term was never part of his repertoire, so I wonder why you would throw it in there.

I agree on the nature of message boards and on fretfulness often playing a large part in people feeling "bullied" for recieving contradiction. The way said contradiction is phrased, however, still often is less than ideal as well.

(03-04-2021, 05:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What is your position on SSF repeatedly calling me a liar and saying I have no integrity?  Why don't you consider that "bullying"?

My position, to a large part, is that you reap what you sow.
My additional position is that I deem all that unnecessary, calling people's integrity in question for example. 

I don't know why or under what circumstances he called you a liar.

And I do not consider it bullying in the sense of ousting someone from these boards, because for one he is a single person and he won't succeed in bullying you out anyway. The whole aspect debated was not "regular power poster vs. regular power poster". You have your year-long quarrels and they are not lead nicely, but to me that's not really the issue at hand. You all could use less aggressive terms, that includes SSF as much as it includes you.

(03-04-2021, 05:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What about when he mischaracterizes peoples statements and then refuses to ever post examples when called out for it?

I don't really know about that. He doesn't do that with me, and I feel we do not agree on that awfully much to begin with, issue-wise. One might wonder why I apparently get treated so differently than apparently you get treated. Imho, it is because I do not use dismissive terms to begin with. By that, I do not pass blame to you or him, on the grounds that I don't really know about that.

(03-04-2021, 05:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How can you say the bullying is due to a liberal majority?  The act of bullying has nothing to do with the number of people doing it.  It is either bully behavior or it isn't.

Well, the issue I was jumping at was "mob mentality", eg. a bunch of users telling a few users off. If you choose a definition of bullying where one single person can do it - which is reasonable - I might have been coming from a different angle.

[fredtoast]

(03-03-2021, 09:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: BTW, ask Fred about the time he offered to have sex with Lucie's underage daughter.  Be careful about where you plant your flag.

I never offered to have sex with his underage daughters.  I offered to have sex with them when they became of legal age because Lucie said it was a good idea when your children came of age to hire a prostitute to educate them about sex.

So what is wrong with agreeing with a guy and offering to do him a favor?

The only problem arises when people lie about what actually happened.

[fredtoast]

(03-03-2021, 02:24 PM)hollodero Wrote: I once (at least once) banished someone conservative from these boards. My eternal sin was correcting some apparent falsehoods about the climate accord. The response was "I'm outta here, I got enough of that crap", and off this user went. I'm sorry, but I do not feel sorry about this kind of "bullying", and I'm also not the least bit sorry for "bullying" bfine. I do acknowledge that there's some way more severe kind of diminishing others going on, it's not like I am unaware of that. I refute it's that one-sided though.

So it is okay for you to correct someone when they are wrong, but if I do it then I am "Calling them stupid"?

How exactly do you make this distinction?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-04-2021, 06:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: TDS, yeah I was told that as well. I usually had quite a lot to say about that. SSF was not amongst those who did say that to me though, and I guess this term was never part of his repertoire, so I wonder why you would throw it in there.

I agree on the nature of message boards and on fretfulness often playing a large part in people feeling "bullied" for recieving contradiction. The way said contradiction is phrased, however, still often is less than ideal as well.



My position, to a large part, is that you reap what you sow.
My additional position is that I deem all that unnecessary, calling people's integrity in question for example. 

I don't know why or under what circumstances he called you a liar.

And I do not consider it bullying in the sense of ousting someone from these boards, because for one he is a single person and he won't succeed in bullying you out anyway. The whole aspect debated was not "regular power poster vs. regular power poster". You have your year-long quarrels and they are not lead nicely, but to me that's not really the issue at hand. You all could use less aggressive terms, that includes SSF as much as it includes you.



I don't really know about that. He doesn't do that with me, and I feel we do not agree on that awfully much to begin with, issue-wise. One might wonder why I apparently get treated so differently than apparently you get treated. Imho, it is because I do not use dismissive terms to begin with. By that, I do not pass blame to you or him, on the grounds that I don't really know about that.



Well, the issue I was jumping at was "mob mentality", eg. a bunch of users telling a few users off. If you choose a definition of bullying where one single person can do it - which is reasonable - I might have been coming from a different angle.

Just a little clarification.  I have Fred on ignore, not because I can't deal with his posts, but because I cannot routinely deal with him without breaking the ToS.  So better for the mods, and everyone else, if I just don't read his posts at all.  I did not routinely call Fred a "liar", I routinely called him dishonest.  These are not the same thing, and one might make a compelling argument that his falsely stating I routinely call him a liar is, in fact, proof of my claims of his dishonesty.  Nor, believe me, am I the only one who has this opinion about Fred, not even remotely.  I just wanted to clarify as I'm all for being called out for what I do, but I'm not big on being called out for what I do not.


It's like you became the Dr. Phil of P&R btw. 

[hollodero]

(03-04-2021, 06:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So it is okay for you to correct someone when they are wrong, but if I do it then I am "Calling them stupid"?

How exactly do you make this distinction?

Tone.

[Wes Mantooth]

(03-04-2021, 06:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I never offered to have sex with his underage daughters.  I offered to have sex with them when they became of legal age because Lucie said it was a good idea when your children came of age to hire a prostitute to educate them about sex.

This is a really weird place.

[fredtoast]

(03-04-2021, 06:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  I did not routinely call Fred a "liar", I routinely called him dishonest.  These are not the same thing, and one might make a compelling argument that his falsely stating I routinely call him a liar is, in fact, proof of my claims of his dishonesty. 

There is no difference between being called "dishonest" and being called a "liar".  Every source I looked at define them both as being "untruthful".

This is just another example of SSF making wild allegations without anything to back them up.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-04-2021, 07:01 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote:

This is a really weird place.

Yeah.  If I recall correctly Fred offered to "breed" her.  The saying gives me douchechills.

[fredtoast]

(03-04-2021, 06:45 PM)hollodero Wrote: Tone.

"Tone" is pretty subjective.

And BTW I don't care for the tone of this reply when I asked about SSF calling me a liar.

(03-04-2021, 06:17 PM)hollodero Wrote: My position, to a large part, is that you reap what you sow.

So either give me an example of when I have lied or apologize for this smug "tone".

[fredtoast]

(03-04-2021, 07:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah.  If I recall correctly Fred offered to "breed" her.  The saying gives me douchechills.

Well as usual you do not recall correctly.

Just like when you claimed that I offered to have sex with his girls while they were underage.  That never happened.

For those of you who were not part of that discussion Lucie was talking about how it was a good idea to take a son to a prostitute when he came of age in order to educate him about sex.  To point out how ridiculous this was I offered to have sex with his daughters when they came of age.  Lucie was a raging sexists and his head exploded when it was suggested that girls should be treated the same way as boys.

The other raging sexists around here also missed the point.