Is it just me...

[vince]

"What about Saturday Night Live's version of Point/CounterPoint?" he said, trying to bring a little bit of humor to the discussion...

I can't open your link as Hulu doesn't work outside of the USA. But I remember the skits well. "Jane you ignorant slut", is one my best 1970's television moments.

That Crossfire show was good for awhile but I kind of think it was the beginning of all the screaming back and forth between Libs and Cons on TV and the end of reasonableness on the airwaves.

 

[798686]

Thank you for recognising my talents. 10 points for you, another 5 for putting my name in bold. :tongue::smile:

*Takes 15 points from Gryffindor to balance it out* :wink:

 

[ColoradoGuy]

I can't open your link as Hulu doesn't work outside of the USA. But I remember the skits well. "Jane you ignorant slut", is one my best 1970's television moments.

That Crossfire show was good for awhile but I kind of think it was the beginning of all the screaming back and forth between Libs and Cons on TV and the end of reasonableness on the airwaves.

Wow, sorry about that... I forgot Hulu has restrictions like that. Although it's a different episode, here's a YouTube clip of a Saturday Night Live Point/CounterPoint sketch discussing Karen Silkwood.

Until you mentioned it, I hadn't drawn the connection between the old Crossfire show and today's 'who shouts the loudest' format of political theatre. I think you're definitely onto something there. Now, we need to program the Wayback machine to the early 1980s to take out Novak -- maybe we can influence him to become a famous public television personality with a flair for loading up his brush with titanium white? LOL.

 

[D_Andreas Sukov]

For a good laugh in a debate, i always search for George Galloway on Youtube. I cant think of a time i have ever seen him truly beaten.

There is one clip where he makes some posh snobby kid from Oxford Uni stop in his tracks with one line talking about invading Iran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKstc-5vQYg

Fast forward to about 4:00 in and it never fails to make me smile. He tries to sound so inspirational. He reminds me of someone from 300, but he just looks like a cunt.

 

[798686]

For a good laugh in a debate, i always search for George Galloway on Youtube. I cant think of a time i have ever seen him truly beaten.

There is one clip where he makes some posh snobby kid from Oxford Uni stop in his tracks with one line talking about invading Iran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKstc-5vQYg

Fast forward to about 4:00 in and it never fails to make me smile. He tries to sound so inspirational. He reminds me of someone from 300, but he just looks like a cunt.

He's good value, ol' George. Bit of a loose cannon, tho. :redface:

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

For a good laugh in a debate, i always search for George Galloway on Youtube. I cant think of a time i have ever seen him truly beaten.

He beat Christopher Hitchens.
[ click me ]

 

[D_Harvey Schmeckel]

Yes it has. IMO it comes from people being afraid of being banned because some "candyass" on here gets their little feelings hurt over what has been posted and they run and cry to the Mods. I get sick of how some on here are quick to lable someone a troll for what they post because it doesn't suit them. All I can say is grow the fuck up! If you're that thinned-skinned maybe you shouldn't be on here. There are plenty of things that have been posted on here that I don't agree with or just plain don't like but I've never attacked anyone or ran crying like a little bitch to the Mods for what they posted, they have a right just as I do to express their opinion whether I agree with it or not. I think its time for people to act like adults and not a bunch of three year olds.

"candyass" 1, "little feelings" 1, "little bitch" 1, reasons to avoid posting in this forum thanks to "100% straight" aggressors, 3

 

[TomCat84]

"candyass" 1, "little feelings" 1, "little bitch" 1, reasons to avoid posting in this forum thanks to "100% straight" aggressors, 3

this

 

[vince]

this

I don't understand.

 

[TomCat84]

I don't understand.

It means I agree

 

[vince]

It means I agree

Really? I'm surprised. What does a person sexual orientation have to do with reasons to avoid posting in this forum? Attacks targeting orientation are not ok and not cool. Substitute '100% gay' for '100% str8' in that statement and tell me that it's a valid way to frame an argument.

I'd like to know why it's okay to call out someone's orientation if they are a str8 male, but not ok if they are basically anything else. No, I take that back.... lesbians get bashed quite a bit here too.

 

[TomCat84]

Really? I'm surprised. What does a person sexual orientation have to do with reasons to avoid posting in this forum? Attacks targeting orientation are not ok and not cool. Substitute '100% gay' for '100% str8' in that statement and tell me that it's a valid way to frame an argument.

I'd like to know why it's okay to call out someone's orientation if they are a str8 male, but not ok if they are basically anything else. No, I take that back.... lesbians get bashed quite a bit here too.

I think you were misunderstanding what I was agreeing with. I was agreeing with this statement:

"candyass" 1, "little feelings" 1, "little bitch" 1, reasons to avoid posting in this forum thanks to "100% straight" aggressors, 3

It's those words, framed in those ways, from people who say they are 100% straight (hell, even 99% straight) that are heterocentric, that intimate that people who report TOS violations are somehow not fully men, effeminate, etc.

 

[TomCat84]

He DID put 100% straight in quotation marks, connoting a wry and sarcastic tone- at least that's how I took it

 

[vince]

OK. I can see your point, but I think it is a stretch and don't think it's ok even if he was being wry or sarcastic.

 

[maxcok]

. . . I also sincerely apologize if any of this come across as abrasive or attacking.

It didn't, so no apology necessary. I don't have any problem with abrasive when it's warranted anyway.

I almost disregarded your post entirely when you opened talking about "Faux News". I find that tactic of changing the name childish and a display of just the tip of the iceberg of arrogance and elitism. I feel the same no matter who is doing the act, liberal or conservative, republican or democrat.

I find your use the terms "arrogance" and "elitism" in describing me indicative of your participation in exactly the game you are objecting to, most ironically so. What is broadcast on that network is at best blatant right-wing bias by commentators playing loose with the facts, at worst it is pure inflammatory propaganda, plain and simple. I will call it "Faux News", "Fux News", anything else I think up with no apology. I call a spade a spade.

I object to being called childish too.

The facts that an individual will use as the basis of their reasoning will be based on their preconceived ideals.

Facts are facts, and exist independently of your subjective viewpoint and "preconceived ideals".
You can ignore the facts or choose selectively, but then you're not being objective.

We do not live in a black and white world. An expert opinion can be found for just about every viewpoint one can think of.

All so-called "experts" are not created equal, which is why I said "consider the source". Also check the resume.
(And I am notoriously grey, which is why I have a hard time with people who only think in black and white.)

This leads to a person having a huge array of "facts" to base their opinions on. They are going to choose that with makes the most sense to them which is probably going to be the one most inline with their preconceived notions. That does not necessarily make their reasoning unsound.

Of course it's unsound, because they're not being objective. If their opinion is not based on factual information, not based in reality, then their reasoning is unsound and the opinion is not valid. You can't have a "huge array of [so-called] facts" contradicting each other and only pick and choose what pleases you. Facts are facts.

I find it arrogant of you to say "I base my opinions on factual information, not the other way around." What you perceive as factual information is likely only factual to you because it falls inline to what you already believe.

You're dead wrong about that, and rather presumptuous to make that judgement of me. Some of us actually go to great lengths to gather the most reliable information we can from a variety of sources, focusing on the most consistently objective and knowledgable sources, just as I described. If other people want to accept being spoonfed a diet that conforms to their ideology, if they don't go to the trouble of seeking out information and thinking for themselves, it doesn't make me "arrogant", it just means I'm better informed.

It's rather rude of you to continue calling me arrogant, btw, on top of childish and elitist.
Say, aren't you the one who came in here objecting to people being "ridiculed", "belittled" and "personally attacked"?
Maybe you should set a better example.

It is too easy to find contradictory evidence to something that you don't want to hear.

But I want to hear the facts, I want to know the truth - even if it's uncomfortable or contradicts what I previously believed. I'm funny that way. Speak for yourself.

An opinion does not have to be factual. In a debate it is most beneficial if your opinions are factual but they don't have to be. I am talking about the nature of all opinions here. I believe that black haired, buff Irishmen are the sexiest men. That is my opinion. It can not be proven nor disproven. But it would probably not win me any arguments.

Of course opinions are not the same as facts, they're opinions. Look, simple equations: Fact = Objective / Opinion = Subjective. Capiche? Beyond that, I don't find your analogy to be particularly apt or relevant to the discussion. Who you find sexually attractive is by its very nature entirely subjective, and that's as it should be. That is a far cry from forming valid, well-informed, well-reasoned opinions on political issues, which one would hope might be more objectively considered.

The people I was referring to are those who came to their opinions on their own, not those who just mimic the mob. I concede, they don't necessarily deserve your respect but they also don't deserve to be ridiculed and called right-wing puppets.

People do not come to opinions on political issues in a vacuum; they're getting information from somewhere.
It's obvious to me when someone is a puppet or a parrot, I can usually tell where their talking points come from, and it's generally futile to try to have a serious discussion with them.

I say these people do deserve to be taken seriously. They are bringing to the table something that they truly believe and you should take the opportunity to have a serious civil discussion hopefully without any fights breaking out.

Why am I obligated to engage in a serious discussion with anyone? Much less someone who displays an obvious pattern of being ill-informed, misinformed, or repeating propaganda and talking points? Seriously, I don't have the time, the interest or the energy to debate with brick walls. Or teach PoliSci 101, for that matter.

Perhaps you missed the tone that I am trying to do exactly as you just recommended?

We shall see. If, as you suggest, all opinions are equally valid and deserve equal consideration, or if you think the Faux News network is a legitimate source of news and information, then I don't think I'll be spending a lot of time in discussion with you.

This is not directed at you, but it sums up my feelings on the subject, so I will repeat:

. . . This is a huge problem in the current political climate and media landscape, where every point of view is expected to be treated with equal consideration, no matter how obviously false and absurd it is. . . .

To expound on that, I have noticed that certain generations of younger adults have been raised with this notion that everybody's point of view is equally valid and deserves equal consideration, not matter how uneducated and ill-considered it may be. I think it's part of that "everybody's a winner let's give them all a trophy just for showing up" mentality that so many baby boom parents raised their kids. At the same time, I understand that teaching Civics, Government and American history ain't what it used to be. Compounding all that is the mainstream media obsession with controversy and providing the "other side" for "balance", even when there is no legitimate balance on the other side.

The truth is, some points of view carry more weight than others because they are educated, well-reasoned and based on actual factual evidence. And that's a fact.

 

[maxcok]

It's no wonder to me that the only right leaning people that are posting here are borderline idiots or trolls. (With certain exceptions, including the OP of this thread)

Since when is TomCat "right leaning"

And PLEASE. Stop referencing Adolf Hitler....it is very disrespectful. Leave that tactic to Glenn Beck.

What is "disrespectful" about my referencing that quote? Did you even consider the context?

I see many parallels between the current national mood and the political climate in the United States compared with Germany in the 1930's - pervasive anxiety, the tough financial situation, the rise of nationalism and faux patriotism, the longing among many for more "traditional" values and a more "traditional" way of life reminiscent of times past, xenophobia, the scapegoating of immigrants, aliens, racial, religious and sexual minorities, strident voices in the political debate shouting down voices of reason, the rise of hate groups, the determination of an extreme right-wing minority to "take the country back" and set the course for the rest of us. ​

In light of all that, in light of the theme of propaganda I was discussing with ScotchIrish, in light of the manner in which the American public is disengaged from the operations of government and the realities of the political process, unquestioningly accepting stories told by the media and certain charismatic political leaders - I think this quotation is entirely apt, and it might give thinking people pause. Knowing that the author of the quote mastered the art of propaganda and used it to launch his horrors on an unsuspecting world, makes it all the more powerful and resonant in my mind. Is it "disrespectful" to be reminded of lessons of history that could serve as a caution for today?​

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think". -- Adolf Hitler​

Is it improper to reference Hitler or the rise of Nazism in any context? I posted that quote thoughtfully and deliberately - not as a "tactic" as you say, but hopefully to cause people to "think" and to reflect. ​

I take umbrage at being compared to Glenn Beck. I will assume you missed the point.

​

 

[flame boy]

Just sayin'.

 

[maxcok]

Just sayin'.

Well I think that kinda trivializes the context, but whatever . . .

Now back to your regularly scheduled tea party.


pass the milquetoast please




P.S. "The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering genocide, propaganda, eugenics (racial superiority) or other mainstays of Nazi Germany, . . . "

Just sayin . . . .

 

[D_Harvey Schmeckel]

Really? I'm surprised. What does a person sexual orientation have to do with reasons to avoid posting in this forum?

Nothing per se. But the bullying, taunting phrases are either sexist (if targeting a woman) or homophobic (if targeting a man.) Three instances of the kind of taunting that equates feminizing the "opponent" with humiliating him or her. Those words came from someone who identifies as 100% straight.

Attacks targeting orientation are not ok and not cool. Substitute '100% gay' for '100% str8' in that statement and tell me that it's a valid way to frame an argument.

There was no argument whatsoever, no premises, no conclusions. Just a statement that these three sexist/homophobic phrases were offputting to me and came from someone who ID's as 100% straight. I used the plural because bullying, taunting language has been far more evident in my experience at LPSG from self-defined 100% straight men than from anyone else on this site. And more so on this forum than anywhere else.

I'd like to know why it's okay to call out someone's orientation if they are a str8 male, but not ok if they are basically anything else. No, I take that back.... lesbians get bashed quite a bit here too.

It is a huge stretch to accuse me of bashing straight men in general, when the complaint was about a specific one using sexist/homophobic language to demean other sitemembers.

 

[ColoradoGuy]

. . .
You're dead wrong about that, and rather presumptuous to make that judgement of me. Some of us actually go to great lengths to gather the most reliable information we can from a variety of sources, focusing on the most consistently objective and knowledgable sources, just as I described. If other people want to accept being spoonfed a diet that conforms to their ideology, if they don't go to the trouble of seeking out information and thinking for themselves, it doesn't make me "arrogant", it just means I'm better informed.
. . .

Bump that. If MORE people did take the time to understand issues before engaging keyboard, this would be a more productive and interesting forum. Too often, these threads devolve into presenting (and sometimes rehashing) basic facts that aren't understood by the posters -- it disrupts the natural progression of the conversation in the best case, and derails it in the worst.

IMHO, maxcok is pretty well informed... I've never thought he was arrogant or even exhibiting arrogance. I have seen 'arrogance' thrown around as a descriptor for posters in here and from the few times it's registered with me (including your use, scotchirish), I've thought it was an inappropriate word choice to the complaint or post in question.