04-01-2024, 08:35 PM
(04-01-2024, 08:18 PM)Dill Wrote: It’s not about what I like or don’t like. It’s about where the preponderance of evidence leads. I’ll mention four points:
1. Does SSF really "call out" each side? I’ve read a ton of his posts on dozens of threads, on the Gaza War, Supreme Court decisions, abortion rights in Ohio, Limbaugh’s death, Hunter's laptop, Trump's defamation trial, the Muslim ban, Rittenhouse thread, it goes on and on. That’s not a few key issues. In none I can remember was he “calling out both sides.” He has produced lengthy posts worrying about how Trump rioters or supporters might be misunderstood or mischaracterized? But how many for BLM? He has raged against Bush, a Republican, not from a definitively left or centrist angle, but rather to illustrate the MAGA premise that Trump is treated with a double standard. So DEFINITELY not the furthest thing from a Trump supporter, even if not a Trump supporter.
2. Conversely, where's the thread where SSF defends some "left" policy post after post against "the modern right," personally attacking our right leaning posters as "liars" and "hypocrites" or "Communist sympathizers"? I don't read all threads. But I’m not aware of anything close to that. Will consider the evidence if there is such, though. I’m quite aware that SSF sometimes preface’s posts with claims he thinks Trump a terrible person, but that’s before defending his policies and attacking Trump critics. If you gathered all such statements together, the quantity would not match a singe rage post against Joy Reid. Pretty easy to get an overview of the threads he has started, revealing his consistent choice of topic and angle of critique. http://thebengalsboard.com/search.php?action=results&sid=39f941166baae3753050a7ae8bdf8535.
3. You say he is “socially left,” but the only evidence for that are his CLAIMS he is pro choice and gay marriage and the like. But he only seems to talk about that stuff when someone notices his rightward orientation, or he is about to support right wing critics of laws like "Don't say gay." If he thinks Trump court selections enhance our “freedoms,” then it seems to me he is not so much for pro-choice and gay/trans rights as he doesn’t really care. Could he be unclear as to which movement—progressives or MAGA—poses the biggest threat to those rights?
4. Others notice this overwhelmingly rightward orientation as well, and it’s across the spectrum in this forum, where his posts often elicit cheers from the right. When his energy goes into attacking what he calls “the modern left” and progressives, what else are they, or anyone, supposed to think?
So, four different types and levels of evidence. This evidence does not suggest that I close out “centrism” as a political option. But it certainly does question SSF's claim to "independence" and even handedness. He is not smack between Biden and Trump. And he is getting angrier at "the left" and progressives by the day. The question is, given the discrepancy between SAYS and DOES here, why does he continually present himself as some kind of non-partisan independent? Possibly he imagines the claim alone “proves” his neutrality, a position from which he can then “call out” others for partisanship. He does that frequently. Anyway, I just see this as one more example where his self image and descriptions of political reality don’t fit that reality.
Literally could not have made a better post to illustrate that you really don't actually read what the people you disagree with actually write.
(04-01-2024, 09:05 AM)GMDino Wrote: I'm responding to what you already had in bold:
We just had a huge discussion about labeling groups, not using names meant to provoke or incite, but SSF can call you an antisemite and makes claims about you without a single link to anything to prove what he says. He calls you a terrorist sympathizer because you don't fall in lock step with what he believes (black and white).
Either put up of shut up. Just casting aspersions because you disagree is what leads this entire forum in the wrong direction.
And I'll be charged with "standing up for my buddy" (as if the clicks in here don't do that all the time) whereas I am using this example to talk about the board as a whole.
I've literally done exactly that, numerous times. I will reiterate because apparently you can't be bothered to read. Among other things, which I have pointed out, Dill said, straight out, that he does not believe Israel has a right to exist in any form it has since its reformation after WW2. I'll repeat, he does not think Israel should be able to exist. That's the person you're defending here from "unfounded" judgments. Put up enough for you?
