CDZ What makes a good poster?

[Flopper]

Although I agree with most of your post, cognitive scientists have determined by many studies that facts and rational arguments do not change opinions. They only polarize opinions

Intriguing.

I must be unique in that way then.

If you want to change hearts and mind, you have to establish a dialog and you can't do that by proving your adversary is wrong.

My opinion is this: Never refer to the person you are debating with as an "adversary". That only hardens them to your viewpoints... or in your words, it further "polarizes" their opinion against yours.

Furthermore, the person you are debating should not live in ignorance if facts are readily available to contradict their argument. Nor should they live in ignorance of facts. One of the worst things, I believe, is to let a person continue believing something that isn't true when there are facts and evidence to the contrary. How they handle that information is a burden for them to bear alone.

This. ^^

That's more to the point --- correcting the record. The partisan who insists on peddling mythologies isn't going to be swayed, but the third-party reader deserves to know what the reality is.

Submitting facts to set the record straight is fine. Just don't expect it to change the opinion of the person you are debating. Of course what we do on USMB is not real debating.

Yes, but again, it's a leap to assume changing the opinion of one's counterpart is the goal in the first place.

Most USMB members are not trying change hearts and minds. They are here to do battle with the opposition. Changing the opinion of the opposition is only a guise to conceal their real motive which is win the fight.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The board isn't set up to accomplish anything meaningful. It's just the reality of things.
You could change that. But your leaders don't want that.

This BB thrives on conflict, keeps the lights on....the software here literally baits posters on in

You need better leaders. That's what makes a good poster

But we really , deep down. don't want to rise up to such lofty aspirations NC

What we want is a place to vent, blame, hate

That sells like hotcakes in any system circilin' the drain

~S~

A lot of people say forums are a dying trend. I don't agree with that. The best thing about this board is the age demgraphic. We've got a lot of young and a lot of seniors who thrived in the somewhat glory days. And there's a lot of different skillsets I've noticed. We can send westwall up with a banner or something lolol.

What I'm talking about when I say you need better leaders is everybody has to stop just repeating what Hannity and those whacko birds on the Five and whatnot pop off about. It's like reality tv. Change the discussion to meaningful things then take action. When's the last time any of em talked about that debt we're kicking down the road? It's always stupid stuff and it just spills over.

 

[sparky]

What I'm talking about when I say you need better leaders is everybody has to stop just repeating what Hannity and those whacko birds on the Five and whatnot pop off about. It's like reality tv.

they exist for the sole purpose of antagonizing the populace , same philosophy that sells well here, or anywhere tools gather

myself i gave up tv years ago, don't get any newspapers , rarely listen to any politician stumpin' , and believe a fraction at best of what's on this devil box

Change the discussion to meaningful things then take action. When's the last time any of em talked about that debt we're kicking down the road? It's always stupid stuff and it just spills over.

Some HP is required where a level of interconnectability exists. Conceptualizing an issue of many interactive elements malleable influence is a chore. It's been decades, maybe it was Arthur C Clark? He would ask we close eyes imaging 3 sticks, then imagine 3 sets of 3 sticks, they imagine them moving, etc....he felt the grey matter required such remedial exercise towards what you seek NC


~S~

 

[candycorn]

Mexico isn’t paying for the wall...taxpayers are.

Perfect example of a bad post. ^^^^^^ Off topic, no content, parroting talking points.

I agree with you actually.

And I’m sure it will be deleted as it casts Trump in a poor light. However, the challenge that was issued was how Trump’s lies adversely affect us.

Money that was allocated by our elected representatives is being re-allocated (aka stolen) to pay for a wall that was supposed to be funded by a foreign country according to our President. The asking of the question was “off topic”. My response only follows the question that was asked.

Assuming that your post is not dishonest, what dishonesty on the part of our current President has resulted in serious and measurable negative consequences for our country? Please be specific.

So….the question asked would have to be “off topic” as well…and it has yet to have been deleted

 

[candycorn]

The board isn't set up to accomplish anything meaningful. It's just the reality of things.
You could change that. But your leaders don't want that.

This BB thrives on conflict, keeps the lights on....the software here literally baits posters on in

You need better leaders. That's what makes a good poster

But we really , deep down. don't want to rise up to such lofty aspirations NC

What we want is a place to vent, blame, hate

That sells like hotcakes in any system circilin' the drain

~S~

A lot of people say forums are a dying trend. I don't agree with that. The best thing about this board is the age demgraphic. We've got a lot of young and a lot of seniors who thrived in the somewhat glory days. And there's a lot of different skillsets I've noticed. We can send westwall up with a banner or something lolol.

What I'm talking about when I say you need better leaders is everybody has to stop just repeating what Hannity and those whacko birds on the Five and whatnot pop off about. It's like reality tv. Change the discussion to meaningful things then take action. When's the last time any of em talked about that debt we're kicking down the road? It's always stupid stuff and it just spills over.

Pretty much agree however the almost cartoonish claims some have made here are the actual true gold (I am amazed at how many multi millionaires, captains of industry and ex Special Forces types take time out of the day to post on this message board). Honest discussions are fine but they are the dying trend; where you can sink your teeth into a topic, write 3 or 4 paragraphs, have someone read them and respond in kind. That’s pretty much gone. The comic relief is what I look for. It’s plentiful.

 

[Darkwind]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

For me, I don't care what anybody's position is as long as they get to it honestly. That's all I need. But rarely get.

Thanks in part to our current president, people assume that dishonesty is acceptable as long as it's for a good cause.

Just the current President, eh?

 

[JoeMoma]

Pithiness.

 

[Flopper]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

For me, I don't care what anybody's position is as long as they get to it honestly. That's all I need. But rarely get.

Thanks in part to our current president, people assume that dishonesty is acceptable as long as it's for a good cause.

Just the current President, eh?

I said, "in part". All presidents lie. Some lie to hide things in their personal life such Kennedy hiding his Addison disease and Clinton hiding his affair with Lewinsky. Others, lied to protect policies such as Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair. And still others made promises they know they couldn't never keep such as Obama telling the public they would be able to keep their doctor in Obamacare. However, Trump has to be the first president that creates his own fact, lies about trivial details, or just plain makes shit up to drive home a point. The media calls him out on it, but it's so common the public is not paying attention anymore. It use to be a big deal when a president such as Obama, Bush, or Clinton lied but not anymore.

 

[Leo123]

I said, "in part". All presidents lie. Some lie to hide things in their personal life such Kennedy hiding his Addison disease and Clinton to hiding his affair with Lewinsky. Others, lied to protect policies such as Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair. And still others made promises they know they couldn't never keep such as Obama telling the public they would be able to keep their doctor in Obamacare. However, Trump has to be the first president that creates his own fact, lies about trivial details, or just plain makes shit up to drive home a point. The media calls him out on it, but it's so common the public is not paying attention anymore. It use to be a big deal when a president such as Obama, Bush, or Clinton lied but not anymore.

Good example of a bad post ^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Leo123]

Pretty much agree however the almost cartoonish claims some have made here are the actual true gold (I am amazed at how many multi millionaires, captains of industry and ex Special Forces types take time out of the day to post on this message board). Honest discussions are fine but they are the dying trend; where you can sink your teeth into a topic, write 3 or 4 paragraphs, have someone read them and respond in kind. That’s pretty much gone. The comic relief is what I look for. It’s plentiful.

If we rated posts from 1 to 10 (1 being the best) this post would be around 12.

 

[Jackson]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

For me, I don't care what anybody's position is as long as they get to it honestly. That's all I need. But rarely get.

Thanks in part to our current president, people assume that dishonesty is acceptable as long as it's for a good cause.

Just the current President, eh?

I said, "in part". All presidents lie. Some lie to hide things in their personal life such Kennedy hiding his Addison disease and Clinton to hiding his affair with Lewinsky. Others, lied to protect policies such as Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair. And still others made promises they know they couldn't never keep such as Obama telling the public they would be able to keep their doctor in Obamacare. However, Trump has to be the first president that creates his own fact, lies about trivial details, or just plain makes shit up to drive home a point. The media calls him out on it, but it's so common the public is not paying attention anymore. It use to be a big deal when a president such as Obama, Bush, or Clinton lied but not anymore.

Flopper, I think you are right on all accounts. For me, I agree that all presidents lie because there is a reason for it. To hide something, usually. And Trump will lie about the most incidental things I just shake my head not understanding why.

But, the difference between him and most other presidents is that his biggest motivation is to make America great again, just like his slogan. It isn't building a legacy like Obama, wealth and sex as in Clinton or changing our nation to socialism as in Biden.

I still support Trump because I believe in his ideologue, not his incendiary remarks about others.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

For me, I don't care what anybody's position is as long as they get to it honestly. That's all I need. But rarely get.

Thanks in part to our current president, people assume that dishonesty is acceptable as long as it's for a good cause.

Just the current President, eh?

I said, "in part". All presidents lie. Some lie to hide things in their personal life such Kennedy hiding his Addison disease and Clinton hiding his affair with Lewinsky. Others, lied to protect policies such as Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair. And still others made promises they know they couldn't never keep such as Obama telling the public they would be able to keep their doctor in Obamacare. However, Trump has to be the first president that creates his own fact, lies about trivial details, or just plain makes shit up to drive home a point. The media calls him out on it, but it's so common the public is not paying attention anymore. It use to be a big deal when a president such as Obama, Bush, or Clinton lied but not anymore.

The key words is "so common" when you lower the bar no one cares anymore....you posted the examples of Bill, Bush Jr and Obama .. that's why no one cares about Trump


.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Pithiness.

Tl:dr

 

[forkup]

In other words, neither you nor Flopper can come up with a single example of how "dishonesty" on the part of our current President has resulted in serious and measurable negative consequences for our country.

Anyone else want to give it a try?

Sure. Growing Partisan Differences in Views of the FBI; Stark Divide over ICE
Less than half of self-identified GOP members look at the FBI in a favorable light. Think that's a serious problem if the premier law enforcement agency is looked at with distrust. This is undoubtedly due in large part because of Trumps constant barrage of lies.
Trust in Trump remains low worldwide
This hampers the US ability to negotiate on the international stage. Look what that does to the DOW. He has broken several international agreements while lying about the motivation not the least of which is this.
Iran suspends parts of nuclear deal. Iran starting their nuclear programs again can be considered negative, can't it? There are many more but let's start here.

Just curious why would Democrats look positive at the F.B.I. since Comey lost the election for Hillary?



.

Because I look at Comey as someone who made certain decisions in the belief it was in the best interest of the FBI. Those decisions might have screwed Clinton, but they were made out of a desire to protect his agency from politically motivated attacks. As it happens it still happened, but to me, he did it out of a sense of duty to law and order. I thought this while it happened. I thought this after the results of it became clear and I still think it now. My position on it did not change.

Wow just wow..


That has to be the most craziest thing I heard in awhile.


.

Wait so you believe it was more important for Comey to protect the F.B.I then have a fair Election?


.

No, I believe politics should not drive decisions made by the FBI. Unfortunately, when you make a decision during an election year you will influence the elections for one party or another regardless. At that point, I believe it's the duty of the FBI to just tell the truth. In the case of Clinton, Comey first came out saying that Clinton was in the clear. The problem was. Potential additional evidence was discovered after that statement. Comey could sit on it, in which case, the GOP would blame him for trying to cover up evidence if it leaked. Which it would surely do. Or he could immediately release it. In an attempt to cut off the accusation. And try to expedite the evaluation of the potential evidence. Now, I think there is nothing wrong with making decisions based on what you consider the best of 2 shitty options.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Sure. Growing Partisan Differences in Views of the FBI; Stark Divide over ICE
Less than half of self-identified GOP members look at the FBI in a favorable light. Think that's a serious problem if the premier law enforcement agency is looked at with distrust. This is undoubtedly due in large part because of Trumps constant barrage of lies.
Trust in Trump remains low worldwide
This hampers the US ability to negotiate on the international stage. Look what that does to the DOW. He has broken several international agreements while lying about the motivation not the least of which is this.
Iran suspends parts of nuclear deal. Iran starting their nuclear programs again can be considered negative, can't it? There are many more but let's start here.

Just curious why would Democrats look positive at the F.B.I. since Comey lost the election for Hillary?



.

Because I look at Comey as someone who made certain decisions in the belief it was in the best interest of the FBI. Those decisions might have screwed Clinton, but they were made out of a desire to protect his agency from politically motivated attacks. As it happens it still happened, but to me, he did it out of a sense of duty to law and order. I thought this while it happened. I thought this after the results of it became clear and I still think it now. My position on it did not change.

Wow just wow..


That has to be the most craziest thing I heard in awhile.


.

Wait so you believe it was more important for Comey to protect the F.B.I then have a fair Election?


.

No, I believe politics should not drive decisions made by the FBI. Unfortunately, when you make a decision during an election year you will influence the elections for one party or another regardless. At that point, I believe it's the duty of the FBI to just tell the truth. In the case of Clinton, Comey first came out saying that Clinton was in the clear. The problem was. Potential additional evidence was discovered after that statement. Comey could sit on it, in which case, the GOP would blame him for trying to cover up evidence if it leaked. Which it would surely do. Or he could immediately release it. In an attempt to cut off the accusation. And try to expedite the evaluation of the potential evidence. Now, I think there is nothing wrong with making decisions based on what you consider the best of 2 shitty options.

An underling doesn't do that. One person like Comey can't sway an election over pride.



.

 

[forkup]

Just curious why would Democrats look positive at the F.B.I. since Comey lost the election for Hillary?



.

Because I look at Comey as someone who made certain decisions in the belief it was in the best interest of the FBI. Those decisions might have screwed Clinton, but they were made out of a desire to protect his agency from politically motivated attacks. As it happens it still happened, but to me, he did it out of a sense of duty to law and order. I thought this while it happened. I thought this after the results of it became clear and I still think it now. My position on it did not change.

Wow just wow..


That has to be the most craziest thing I heard in awhile.


.

Wait so you believe it was more important for Comey to protect the F.B.I then have a fair Election?


.

No, I believe politics should not drive decisions made by the FBI. Unfortunately, when you make a decision during an election year you will influence the elections for one party or another regardless. At that point, I believe it's the duty of the FBI to just tell the truth. In the case of Clinton, Comey first came out saying that Clinton was in the clear. The problem was. Potential additional evidence was discovered after that statement. Comey could sit on it, in which case, the GOP would blame him for trying to cover up evidence if it leaked. Which it would surely do. Or he could immediately release it. In an attempt to cut off the accusation. And try to expedite the evaluation of the potential evidence. Now, I think there is nothing wrong with making decisions based on what you consider the best of 2 shitty options.

An underling doesn't do that. One person like Comey can't sway an election over pride.



.

Why do you jump to pride as his motivator? Tell me what do you suppose he should have done?

 

[Jackson]

Sure. Growing Partisan Differences in Views of the FBI; Stark Divide over ICE
Less than half of self-identified GOP members look at the FBI in a favorable light. Think that's a serious problem if the premier law enforcement agency is looked at with distrust. This is undoubtedly due in large part because of Trumps constant barrage of lies.
Trust in Trump remains low worldwide
This hampers the US ability to negotiate on the international stage. Look what that does to the DOW. He has broken several international agreements while lying about the motivation not the least of which is this.
Iran suspends parts of nuclear deal. Iran starting their nuclear programs again can be considered negative, can't it? There are many more but let's start here.

Just curious why would Democrats look positive at the F.B.I. since Comey lost the election for Hillary?



.

Because I look at Comey as someone who made certain decisions in the belief it was in the best interest of the FBI. Those decisions might have screwed Clinton, but they were made out of a desire to protect his agency from politically motivated attacks. As it happens it still happened, but to me, he did it out of a sense of duty to law and order. I thought this while it happened. I thought this after the results of it became clear and I still think it now. My position on it did not change.

Wow just wow..


That has to be the most craziest thing I heard in awhile.


.

Wait so you believe it was more important for Comey to protect the F.B.I then have a fair Election?


.

No, I believe politics should not drive decisions made by the FBI. Unfortunately, when you make a decision during an election year you will influence the elections for one party or another regardless. At that point, I believe it's the duty of the FBI to just tell the truth. In the case of Clinton, Comey first came out saying that Clinton was in the clear. The problem was. Potential additional evidence was discovered after that statement. Comey could sit on it, in which case, the GOP would blame him for trying to cover up evidence if it leaked. Which it would surely do. Or he could immediately release it. In an attempt to cut off the accusation. And try to expedite the evaluation of the potential evidence. Now, I think there is nothing wrong with making decisions based on what you consider the best of 2 shitty options.

I recall the Clinton "matter: differently. When Comey first came out about Hillary and her carelessness with secret documents, he first said she met every detail of the law....but she didn't intend to do so when intent was not even part of the law. He knew he had to do something and that was to revisit the investigation. That second investigation lasted two days. Enough said.

 

[jwoodie]

I recall the Clinton "matter: differently. When Comey first came out about Hillary and her carelessness with secret documents, he first said she met every detail of the law....but she didn't intend to do so when intent was not even part of the law. He knew he had to do something and that was to revisit the investigation. That second investigation lasted two days. Enough said.

And Mueller, who knew from the start there was no Russian collusion, waited 18 months until after the 2018 elections before acknowledging that FACT.

 

[Care4all]

I was watching something on tv and there was a bit on that if one wants to effectively talk to others, usually about politics, do it without the emotions. I thought about that for a minute and that really makes sense. If you can discuss any subject (Especially politics and religion) by inserting facts and discussions of observations, do it without anger and name calling.

Can posters here manage to discuss based on facts without being emotional, playing the victim and just basically losing it?

In other words can posters be the adults in the room?

I saw something recently on this as well Jackson... As example, instead of calling the person a ''liar'' or accusing them of lying, and ending it there... the right thing to do is to show and explain to the other person, (with links if possible), why you believe it is a lie or misinformation...

it takes more time, it takes patience, it takes viewing the other person as a human being, with a family and friends just like you have and you are....

we all, seemed to have lost that ability... or are now in tweet mode, with a limited word count, and don't explain why we think or believe, what we believe....

 

[task0778]

It's called tolerance, and it ain't easy. When some asshat trolls you or what you wrote, it is definitely not easy to take your time, be patient, and calmly explain why you disagree with whatever the asshat said. Boy howdy, I think we all know how difficult that is to do instead of telling him he's an idiot asshat (paraphrasing).

Sometimes I think you just gotta let the asshats do their thing and ignore their writing. It could be that there are some people on this board and others whose sole purpose is to piss somebody off just for the fun of it. Frankly, at my age I'm not going to engage somebody in conversation if their posts do not indicate an interest in civil discourse. So, I put 'em on Ignore and save myself the aggravation. Certainly there are others who will present the same view or perspective in a better way, and I can at least try to talk to them without getting into a pissing contest. So, small loss if I don't even read what some asshats say.

Back to the OP, you know what I think makes a good poster? It's somebody that writes his/her opinions in a tolerable way for anyone else to respond to, someone that I can disagree with and discuss without getting pissed off. Usually that means not characterizing the other poster or their post, it is possible to disagree with somebody without saying what they wrote is a POS. Yeah, it ain't easy but maybe it boils down to whether or not you wanna be an asshat. Your call, every time you post something.