Why is USMB a hub for bad views?

[gnarlylove]

What happened to your incredible wit? Get tired of putting on a front?

 

[westwall]

No, you're simply wrong. So you are both a liar and a moron.

Does a westwall post say anything but this tripe?

Get a grip and stop being so anti-thetical and hostile towards every single opponent. We get it! You are right and everyone else is wrong! You are in fantasia where you somehow managed to take a human brain and devolve it into a chron-magnum brain, with human deception capacities but chronmagnum stupidity. You deceive yourself into thinking your brain has all the answers, at least when it comes to responding to a post on USMB.

My gosh but you whine a lot. I have never claimed to be infallible and when shown to be in error have readily admitted so. Unlike you and your ilk. You strike me as a first year grad student full of piss and vinegar who just thinks he's the bee's knee's.

Here's a clue. You're average at best. Nothing you have stated has been particularly interesting and none of it is original. You guys don't do original thinking. But, as I said before, you are far better than the usual cut and paste drone....but drone you still are.

 

[gnarlylove]

No, you're simply wrong. So you are both a liar and a moron.

Does a westwall post say anything but this tripe?

Get a grip and stop being so anti-thetical and hostile towards every single opponent. We get it! You are right and everyone else is wrong! You are in fantasia where you somehow managed to take a human brain and devolve it into a chron-magnum brain, with human deception capacities but chronmagnum stupidity. You deceive yourself into thinking your brain has all the answers, at least when it comes to responding to a post on USMB.

My gosh but you whine a lot. I have never claimed to be infallible and when shown to be in error have readily admitted so. Unlike you and your ilk. You strike me as a first year grad student full of piss and vinegar who just thinks he's the bee's knee's.

Here's a clue. You're average at best. Nothing you have stated has been particularly interesting and none of it is original. You guys don't do original thinking. But, as I said before, you are far better than the usual cut and paste drone....but drone you still are.

How is your reply any different from all your other posts? I could care less for your duplicitous accolades, like are you attempting to respect someone or continue your high status? Just stick with the latter because you obviously do not know how to respect someone who disagrees with you.

Your negation forumla goes something like:

"No (the initial disavowal statement)...blah blah blah...unlike you and your pals...yadda yadda. I'm right as usual" (but make it seem like there was a time when you were ever wrong to give it a spice of credibility). I cannot believe you genuinely believe yourself when you say you've been wrong. If anything you said was admitted to yourself as wrong, that means at least 20 different people had to repeat it to you that over and over for 3 months before it would sink in. I can't imagine that's happened very much.

If you could drop the persona and challenge your own beliefs instead of shielding yourself from all criticism, you might become sensible instead of an upset Jesuit on a mission.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I've always considered their philosophy to be progressive and their political identity as leftist, but sure.

The extremists on the right are not the Tea Party -- which is fairly oblivious to the normal GOP social baggage and have the Liberal sense of fear about government power -- The extremists would be the Karl Roves and McCains who are similiarly oblivious to a consistent Conservative philosophy and care mostly about winning. They have dangerous ideas about the attainment of power and the use of that power domestically and Globally..

They are also progressives.

They are not oblivious. They are liars.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Can you explain?

For the kicker, you have a bad case of confirmation bias, sport.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only way we can hope to have productive debate is for us to assess each claim as they come. Pilling more assertions on top of yet unclear assertions make our dialogue futile. But that's your aim, isn't it? You make no attempt to justify what your saying or explain it.

The irony is strong in this one.

 

[flacaltenn]

What happened to your incredible wit? Get tired of putting on a front?

What the hell happened to your thread premise?? Did you get bored with yourself?
I asked you to discuss your issues about the quality of debate on USMB with specific questions..
The pattern here is for you to dance and bob and weave and do any little spin moves that gets you out of commitments to the solid work of defining and supporting an argument in debate.

Any time you're ready sparky.. Let's figure out what's REALLY bugging you eh???

 

[gnarlylove]

FLC I gave up hope on this thread when you added your hostile element and then a bunch of cackling proceeded. Now you care that we aren't discussing the topic? Sounds familiar. Like, you always like to bring the fact up no one is discussing the topic of the OP while you continue to not discuss it yourself. I see you play games with yourself and try to get others to play along. What fetishes.

 

[flacaltenn]

FLC I gave up hope on this thread when you added your hostile element and then a bunch of cackling proceeded. Now you care that we aren't discussing the topic? Sounds familiar. Like, you always like to bring the fact up no one is discussing the topic of the OP while you continue to not discuss it yourself. I see you play games with yourself and try to get others to play along. What fetishes.

Please Mr Gnarly, tell me why I shouldn't be hostile given the title and premise of this thread.
I'm invested in the concept of a DIVERSE USMB community with ALL levels of debate tolerated and welcome. BECAUSE --- it's far superior to any other form of social interaction on difficult and complex topics. YOU OTH -- want to whine about getting your ass kicked anytime a thread dangerously approach a truth or a fact..

And point SPECIFICALLY to the statements you are AVOIDING that deeply wounded you.
The pattern here seems to be that you DO RESPOND to the juvenile and avoid the hard stuff.

Prove me wrong..

 

[BDBoop]

FLC I gave up hope on this thread when you added your hostile element and then a bunch of cackling proceeded. Now you care that we aren't discussing the topic? Sounds familiar. Like, you always like to bring the fact up no one is discussing the topic of the OP while you continue to not discuss it yourself. I see you play games with yourself and try to get others to play along. What fetishes.

Please Mr Gnarly, tell me why I shouldn't be hostile given the title and premise of this thread.
I'm invested in the concept of a DIVERSE USMB community with ALL levels of debate tolerated and welcome. BECAUSE --- it's far superior to any other form of social interaction on difficult and complex topics. YOU OTH -- want to whine about getting your ass kicked anytime a thread dangerously approach a truth or a fact..

And point SPECIFICALLY to the statements you are AVOIDING that deeply wounded you.
The pattern here seems to be that you DO RESPOND to the juvenile and avoid the hard stuff.

Prove me wrong..

You probably shouldn't be hostile, period. This is debate, nobody has done you grievous harm.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hillsdale is the most conservative college in the midwest. I got accepted and thank god I didn't go. Of course they will produce such language. It helps them grow and collect more students and funds. Think about it.

Ted Cruz talks about wanting to uplift this struggling nation and then his next immediate phrase was to gab about the excessive debt and we need to cut entitlements, as if we can't pay for programs but we can pay for trillions in corporate subsidies and tax reliefs for the very rich. See the pattern?. I don't know how you can be so duplicitous and so popular but that's what happens when

You would have benefited from Hillsdale IMHO.

I never went there but I can see you are still searching for answers and after finding Hillsdale's Constitution 101 course myself, i am soaking up the wisdom and find it fulfilling.

Maybe somewhere in their curriculum you'd have found a lesson best synopsized by comedian, Louis C.K. on his TV show, Louie.

"The only time you look in your neighbor's bowl is to make sure they have enough."

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3-LE8DPMm8"]Louie teaches Jane that life isn't always fair. - YouTube[/ame]

I mention this in response to your complaint about some people paying too little or too much in taxes or whatever.

By the way, see Prager University's 5 min. course on the Laffer Curve, called, "Lower Taxes, Higher Revenue."

In fact, I'll present it here for you.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqLjyA0hL1s"]Lower Taxes, Higher Revenue - YouTube[/ame]

I don't doubt I would have benefited. That's human nature, turn a situation into good one (sometimes worse). You're trying to sell me ideas, not argue them. There's a big difference. My only plea is to challenge your own thought. You seem sincere and a genuine person, don't turn a blind eye to challenges to your beliefs. This website is not a good place for that. Check out Noam Chomsky along with your Hillsdale pals.

There are, on the generous side, approximately 20 progressives on this board who can actually articulate an argument. Less than half of that number can actually defend their viewpoints because, quite frankly, they have never actually been challenged. You aren't even in the group that can actually articulate an argument, much less actually defend it.

Tell you what, oh font of all wisdom in the universe, start a thread in the CDZ and invite me to discuss with you how the world actually works. Let us both find out if we are as good at defending our ideas as we think we are. Keep in mind that I, as a classical liberal/libertarian/social conservative who actually went to school, I had to learn from the ground up how to defend my ideas from people that thought I was crazy. All you ever had to do was learn how to talk about yours with other people who were spoon fed the same bullshit you were.

Alternatively, you can continue to posture for the idiots, and receive nothing but scorn from the people who can actually think.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can you explain?

For the kicker, you have a bad case of confirmation bias, sport.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only way we can hope to have productive debate is for us to assess each claim as they come. Pilling more assertions on top of yet unclear assertions make our dialogue futile. But that's your aim, isn't it? You make no attempt to justify what your saying or explain it.

Which claim have you assessed?

 

[flacaltenn]

FLC I gave up hope on this thread when you added your hostile element and then a bunch of cackling proceeded. Now you care that we aren't discussing the topic? Sounds familiar. Like, you always like to bring the fact up no one is discussing the topic of the OP while you continue to not discuss it yourself. I see you play games with yourself and try to get others to play along. What fetishes.

Please Mr Gnarly, tell me why I shouldn't be hostile given the title and premise of this thread.
I'm invested in the concept of a DIVERSE USMB community with ALL levels of debate tolerated and welcome. BECAUSE --- it's far superior to any other form of social interaction on difficult and complex topics. YOU OTH -- want to whine about getting your ass kicked anytime a thread dangerously approach a truth or a fact..

And point SPECIFICALLY to the statements you are AVOIDING that deeply wounded you.
The pattern here seems to be that you DO RESPOND to the juvenile and avoid the hard stuff.

Prove me wrong..

You probably shouldn't be hostile, period. This is debate, nobody has done you grievous harm.

Do you know why he took a cheap shot at the USMB community with the title of this thread?
Or why he chose to embed a detailed slam at the US and Americans in the OP? Or why he chose to neg me rather than RESPOND to the actual thread discussion questions I posed to him?

Is "hostile" daring to question his observations in the OP Betty?

 

[BDBoop]

Please Mr Gnarly, tell me why I shouldn't be hostile given the title and premise of this thread.
I'm invested in the concept of a DIVERSE USMB community with ALL levels of debate tolerated and welcome. BECAUSE --- it's far superior to any other form of social interaction on difficult and complex topics. YOU OTH -- want to whine about getting your ass kicked anytime a thread dangerously approach a truth or a fact..

And point SPECIFICALLY to the statements you are AVOIDING that deeply wounded you.
The pattern here seems to be that you DO RESPOND to the juvenile and avoid the hard stuff.

Prove me wrong..

You probably shouldn't be hostile, period. This is debate, nobody has done you grievous harm.

Do you know why he took a cheap shot at the USMB community with the title of this thread?
Or why he chose to embed a detailed slam at the US and Americans in the OP? Or why he chose to neg me rather than RESPOND to the actual thread discussion questions I posed to him?

Is "hostile" daring to question his observations in the OP Betty?

It's possible he was baiting. And why you chose to take the bait in "hook/line/sinker" mode is beyond me. I should think you would know better than to feed a troll, if that's how you perceive him.

 

[flacaltenn]

You probably shouldn't be hostile, period. This is debate, nobody has done you grievous harm.

Do you know why he took a cheap shot at the USMB community with the title of this thread?
Or why he chose to embed a detailed slam at the US and Americans in the OP? Or why he chose to neg me rather than RESPOND to the actual thread discussion questions I posed to him?

Is "hostile" daring to question his observations in the OP Betty?

It's possible he was baiting. And why you chose to take the bait in "hook/line/sinker" mode is beyond me. I should think you would know better than to feed a troll, if that's how you perceive him.

And what if Betty --- I actually was trying to RESPECT him, by honoring his desires to stay on topic and debate at a reasonable level.. (even if it WAS a baiting opening)? My purpose was to find out why he has such a low opinion of a diverse and broadly engaged community like this one...

 

[BDBoop]

Do you know why he took a cheap shot at the USMB community with the title of this thread?
Or why he chose to embed a detailed slam at the US and Americans in the OP? Or why he chose to neg me rather than RESPOND to the actual thread discussion questions I posed to him?

Is "hostile" daring to question his observations in the OP Betty?

It's possible he was baiting. And why you chose to take the bait in "hook/line/sinker" mode is beyond me. I should think you would know better than to feed a troll, if that's how you perceive him.

And what if Betty --- I actually was trying to RESPECT him, by honoring his desires to stay on topic and debate at a reasonable level.. (even if it WAS a baiting opening)? My purpose was to find out why he has such a low opinion of a diverse and broadly engaged community like this one...

My name isn't Betty.

And you just dodged my point on your feeding the alleged troll.

 

[flacaltenn]

Quick Review here.. In terms of "normal" USMB dialogue -- Was the following post "spiteful" or hostile? -- in terms of your "average" USMB discussions?

You just went thru a defense of your position by stating all of your qualifications to be a "reasoned debater" --- However ---- what folks SAW in the TITLE of this thread
" Why is USMB a hub for bad views?" is a huge rookie leap to conclusions not in evidence. Define "bad views".. Quantify the extent of the problem. Compare with alternatives.. Like for instance, how the DEPTH AND BREADTH of discussions on USMB compares to other social media like Twitter and Facebook. THAT'S what I would have expected from a seasoned reasoned thinker.. But instead --- all we got was................................

Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.

I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.

I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?

Any thoughts?

I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?

Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.

Yeah.. Many thoughts..

1) What is the relevance of taking the cheap shot at the US in USMB and America in general? Are you just soapboxing your recent illuminations in reading Chomsky here -- or do you have broad personal experience with discussions in other languages and locales?

2) What IS a genuine representation of American thought? Even a coarse definition will do.

3) What part of your reasoned academically blessed, debate preparation allows crap like ......

I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.

4) What role have YOU PLAYED in promoting better FOCUSED discussions in those forums like "environment and politics" ? And can you quote examples of the fine level of discourse you are missing from the rest of us?

My interactions with you on those forums indicate to me that you are as focused on the topic as a squirrel. And that glowing generalities and appeals to consensus are the only tools of debate that you have.. Show us your stuff man..

Was it the "focused as a squirrel" part? Because certainly, Gnarly seems to enjoy trading at that level of abuse..

 

[flacaltenn]

It's possible he was baiting. And why you chose to take the bait in "hook/line/sinker" mode is beyond me. I should think you would know better than to feed a troll, if that's how you perceive him.

And what if Betty --- I actually was trying to RESPECT him, by honoring his desires to stay on topic and debate at a reasonable level.. (even if it WAS a baiting opening)? My purpose was to find out why he has such a low opinion of a diverse and broadly engaged community like this one...

My name isn't Betty.

And you just dodged my point on your feeding the alleged troll.

Sorry M'am.. I was under the impression you were channeling Betty Boop. If you're with some other Boop klan -- I deeply regret the inference..

I don't consider Gnarly a troll.. I've been conversing with him for several months and ACTUALLY -- he's one of few in the Enviro section that actually gives a damn about the topic.

 

[BDBoop]

And what if Betty --- I actually was trying to RESPECT him, by honoring his desires to stay on topic and debate at a reasonable level.. (even if it WAS a baiting opening)? My purpose was to find out why he has such a low opinion of a diverse and broadly engaged community like this one...

My name isn't Betty.

And you just dodged my point on your feeding the alleged troll.

Sorry M'am.. I was under the impression you were channeling Betty Boop. If you're with some other Boop klan -- I deeply regret the inference..

I don't consider Gnarly a troll.. I've been conversing with him for several months and ACTUALLY -- he's one of few in the Enviro section that actually gives a damn about the topic.

So, most of your interactions with him have been positive? So then why wouldn't you give him the benefit of the doubt here.

This board doesn't need defending, really. I think our success speaks for itself.

 

[flacaltenn]

My name isn't Betty.

And you just dodged my point on your feeding the alleged troll.

Sorry M'am.. I was under the impression you were channeling Betty Boop. If you're with some other Boop klan -- I deeply regret the inference..

I don't consider Gnarly a troll.. I've been conversing with him for several months and ACTUALLY -- he's one of few in the Enviro section that actually gives a damn about the topic.

So, most of your interactions with him have been positive? So then why wouldn't you give him the benefit of the doubt here.

Well now -- "positive" is a strong word.. Let's say "interesting"...

This board doesn't need defending, really. I think our success speaks for itself.

Damn right. Just try pulling up a chair at your local Starbucks and chatting up strangers about religion, politics or atmospheric physics.. THAT could be risky...

 

[Boss]

As a conservative, my thinking and rationalizations are made on the basis of collective experience. What works is what has worked for mankind, and this is the basis for what I think will work in the future. Ideas that emerge from the political left are often very idealistic and frivolous. Based on some 'theory' that has yet to ever be proven in practicality. Hopeful and wishful thinking, not critical or reasoned thinking at all. "Hope and Change" is a prime example. Simply changing for change sake and hoping things will turn out for the better, is not a well-reasoned or well-thought-out plan, as it turns out. Conservatives could have saved you the time in trying this experiment.

I am a psychologist, and I guess I have always been interested in the way people think and rationalize things. I was probably in about the 5th grade when I realized I wanted to be a psychologist. In my case, the profession picked me, I didn't pick the profession. When it's your 'calling' to study the way people think and rationalize, you certainly have to master your own thinking and rationalization. You very seldom see psychologists going to a psychiatrist. Therefore, I tend to be very comfortable with what I think and believe, and it takes a tremendous amount of hard core information to change what I think. I don't change my mind based on the opinions of others, and in fact, I am very skeptical when someone is attempting to change my mind.

Logical fallacies, or "formal" and "informal" fallacies, are errors in logic. These should never be a problem to isolate and point out to the individual employing them. It's simply a matter of articulation. If you cannot articulate why something is a "logical fallacy" it probably isn't one.

You are clearly intelligent and I appreciate your posts. But to think a field of study takes on human intention by choosing you is not very rational. I respect this belief however, and am aware when I am on the "right track" in life and when I'm not. Your premise seems more narrative based then in objective reality. I'm not saying we have total access to objectivity in the world and can understand it fully, but if we can't differentiate between what our values /opinions are and mistake them for fact, we are making rational discussion and compromise more difficult. There is more brush to clear then. If we both could come to common ground, work from a common premise from which to discuss, then I think we can have fruitful discussion. So let's see what you wrote,

Take you uncritical blanket statements about liberals and idealizing. What is a principle, such as many conservatives talk about, if not an ideal? An ideal for which to strive? Maybe you don't listen to you conservative representatives much. Neither do I but enough to know they use idealistic language. In fact, ideology, which has caused the gridlock in congress is in fact NOT WORKING. I take practicality seriously too and the ideological gridlock in congress is a result of neither side compromising, neither side modifying principle in order to make the system work so that our current system doesn't work, except for the super rich 1%. They have much access to our politicians and fund their campaigns.

But actually that's what congress was designed to do: represent the interests of those who own the nation (1%/corporations) but this is a different topic and I won't say anymore.

I wanted to address your Hope and Change objection. You speak as if either concept is idealist. If we take hope at face value, hope is essential to wake up in the morning. Without a motivation that you haven't yet achieved though are striving for, then you don't get out of bed, even if it's just a vague estimate. So Hope sounds very essential to human thinking and life in general, a belief that things can get better.

Take change. Well, taken at face value again, change simply means a different and new situation. Well, I doubt many people think there should be no change from this moment on. Change is happening each day and without adaptation, humans could not survive. Thus, we were born into a constantly changing world and we must keep up if we want to play the game. So yeah, change also seems critical for our lives. Plus I doubt many people think the government and politics are how they should remain...so yeah, change is and can be good, depending on what the change is. Such vague terms are really malleable for use as political strategy.

Even McCain's 2008 campaign sought "Hope and Change" for their campaign slogan but didn't pull it off as well--I'm simply talking in marketing/advertising terms, I don't care about who won or who is better. Why did both candidates choose this slogan? Look at the polls around the time. What was the country wanting? Hope. Change. That's what a billion dollar campaign can get you, brilliant strategists who read public polls. In fact, CPAC speech by Ted Cruz yesterday or recently also invoked Hope and Change as something Cons need but obviously not of the liberal variety.

So your attack on Hope and Change and idealism of liberals seems far less based in rational discussion then some personal antipathy towards liberals. I am sorry that liberals in the past have rubbed you raw so that you don't genuinely respect liberals from the get-go (I don't think your accusing me of this, I'm merely making what appears to be a factual observation about how you treat a liberal). Given that fact I am skeptical to the quality of discussion we can have. So I want to be clear I am opposed to both parties so you don't box me in as lib or con. like those are the only two possible positions. Perhaps working from the common ground of critical thinking and discussion instead of personal feeling and invocations of intuition, we can reach some common ground. That would feel like a warm cup of delicious tea if we could accomplish this. The ball is in your court. Tear this apart, ask me a question, anything, just please let's try to remain as close to rationality and reason as we can.

We can never be close to rationality because you are not rational. You have a liberal worldview and are prepared to argue and advocate it no matter what I say. You seem to think you can do this by appealing to my ability to reason and by claiming you are neither liberal or conservative, which is a lie.

Every statement made by liberal politicians over the past 20 years has been a platitude. Emotively appealing to the lowest common denominator. Conservatives have done nothing BUT compromise. Not only with liberals, but with our own political party. McCain WAS a conservative compromise, Romney as well.

I presented "Hope and Change" as an example of how liberals are idealistic. You responded by defending the mantra and attempting to connect republicans to the phrase as well. But I was not attacking hope and change, merely giving an example of liberal idealism. Then you want to parse "idealism" and claim conservatives are ideologues as well, but I know better. Conservatism isn't an ideology like liberalism. This is why conservatives often have a difficult time coalescing behind a platform suitable to all. But the point is, you aren't wanting to genuinely listen to what I am saying, you want to defend liberalism and argue over semantics. Yet, you want ME to be reasonable, rational, and willing to compromise.

When you start muttering nonsense about the 1%, you give yourself away as a liberal. Conservatives recognize the "occupy movement" rhetoric for what it is, which is actually repackaged Maoist philosophy. If you go back and study Mao's rise to power, you will find the exact same arguments being made. The 1% vs. The 99%.... sparked the People's Revolution. Now I don't have time to argue with you over the merits of Maoist philosophy, if you want to believe in it, that's up to you.

Conservative philosophy is based on what is tried and true, what works for humanity, which is freedom and liberty. Not class warfare rhetoric and emotive pleas to idealism.