|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Hey here's another one, and while in spite of myself I almost like you HY!L, I gotta admit I reported you for this on general principle: i mean if you look at the differences between this post: Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Right, but leadership will need to be on board. They currently don't seem to be. and this post VitalSigns posted:Donors didn't want ACA repealed because it's a huge handout to the insurance industry and ending it would just wreck businesses with no gain for anybody. (And donors know that cutting subsidies wasn't necessary to cut their taxes since no one cares about the deficit except as an excuse to not spend money on anything except handouts to the rich). Donors do want Kavanaugh confirmed because he will continue rolling back worker protections and entrenching corporate power. or this post Prester Jane posted:Probe this man for criticizing the Democrats. He knows the rules of this thread very well. Criticizing the Democrats is verboten because it gives all the affluent white liberals in here the vapors and we absolutely cannot allow that. They're pretty different.
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:53 |
|
|
The only difference between VitalSigns post and HYL seems to be that Vital Signs actually specified why Democrata are unlikely to do X whereas HYL left it unsaid. I'm honestly curious why you think those two posts are so different?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The only difference between VitalSigns post and HYL seems to be that Vital Signs actually specified why Democrata are unlikely to do X whereas HYL left it unsaid. Well they're similar in that they're both vaguely "dems bad" (or at least neither are "dems good") that's certainly true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
lol at needing to tiptoe around the fact that dems are bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Why even bother posting here then? Don't you have anything better to do? When I need a break from those things I post here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:If I don't get probated, which I don't think I will. It just proves my point. You can discuss the current state of the Democratic leadership provided you're not on the Trump Thread Crybabies Club shitlist, in which case any mention of the Democrats at all will result in a massive derail as the crybabies pile on, ending in you getting a probation and the crybabies feeling vindicated. You're not on the shitlist, HY!L, which is why you won't get a probation. Other posters would, again for exactly the same content as what you posted. So you can discuss the Democrats provided you're super respectful and don't ruffle any feathers and don't go too far in your criticism and always include enough caveats and bullshit that you can immediately walk back what you said if called on it. Seems right up your street.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well they're similar in that they're both vaguely "dems bad" (or at least neither are "dems good") that's certainly true. So how are they different? The length? The tone? I find arguments about modding kind of tiresome and mostly avoid them but since you literally are putting those posts side by side and saying "look how obviously different they are" I'm really curious what the relevant difference here is? Your answer might help me get a better understanding of how a pretty big contingent of D&D posters think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:i mean if you look at the differences between this post: if anything VS' post was the better one because it explained why 'leaders aren't on board' yet it's the one that got punished. So is the rule just 'you can say the dems won't do something but you can't actually ascribe demonstrable motives because those make us feel bad'?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Okay okay, you can say the Democrats are bad, but don't offer any detail. Don't say why. Then you're good. ...wait that's probably not right either. Pretty sure if I just wandered into the Trump thread and replied to someone and said "oh no, the Democrats won't actually do the good thing you just said" and left it at that (like you did, HY!L, exactly like you did) I'd catch a probation. In fact, I'm pretty sure I have caught a probation for exactly that. In conclusion, the Trump thread is a land of contrasts (between who can post certain things with impunity, and who can't).
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:This is a really bad post. Even for you. Wait, so you agree with me? All you have to do is not be a bad faith poster, who is known to post in bad faith about this issue, and there will be no probation related to said discussion. If someone, who is known to post in bad faith about said topic, makes a post in bad faith, they get probated? shocking I tell you, shocking. Helsing posted:So how are they different? The length? The tone? sexpig by night posted:if anything VS' post was the better one because it explained why 'leaders aren't on board' yet it's the one that got punished. So is the rule just 'you can say the dems won't do something but you can't actually ascribe demonstrable motives because those make us feel bad'? Vital Signs post was incredibly wrong. and it is very revealing for you think think it was a good post. quote:same reason Schumer whipped against ACA repeal but encourages his caucus to vote yes on Kavanaugh, etc. Just look how stupid that statement is. Why would anyone listen to anything he says about the democratic leadership if he is willing to put forth blatant falsehoods like this, and you all agree with him like it's true. That's one big reason why nobody wants to hear what he has to say. Notice how my post didn't have outright falsehoods and lies in it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Okay okay, you can say the Democrats are bad, but don't offer any detail. Don't say why. Then you're good. Give it a shot and see what happens. I'd love to see the results, and if you can actually post in a way that isn't purposefully inflammatory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Just look how stupid that statement is. Schumer has said nobody will be punished for voting yes on Kavanaugh. That's basically passively endorsing that action.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
That's not bad faith posting lol.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Schumer has said nobody will be punished for voting yes on Kavanaugh. That's basically passively endorsing that action. Oh Snapple! posted:That's not bad faith posting lol. Is he really encouraging them to vote yes though? Do you feel that is an accurate statement?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Is he really encouraging them to vote yes though? Do you feel that is an accurate statement? Yes, when he said his statement there were TONS of people asking if the Manchin types would be punished for doing just like they did before and voting for the horrible chud SCOTUS guy, even as K's numbers dropped in polling Manchin and other losers waffled around and did stunts like taking meetings with him and all. Their literal leader in the senate saying 'nah you won't be punished' was encouragement
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
signing off on Kavanaugh is good, you see. for reasons. absolutely unrelated to the need to own the libs
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Is he really encouraging them to vote yes though? Do you feel that is an accurate statement? If he’s saying that no one would be punished for voting for the dude who wants to force women to have babies, then yeah, he’s encouraging it. It’s a very accurate statement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Wait, so you agree with me?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
The lesson here is that you can encourage without outright cheering, in the sense of encouraging bad behavior by saying those who exhibit it will get a pass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Is he really encouraging them to vote yes though? Do you feel that is an accurate statement? I 100% believe that Vital Signs believes the things he is posting. Two people can hold good faith positions that are not reconcilable. But maybe the resulting long and drawn out discussion of the definition of the word "encourage" might be part of why that post got the hammer? I'm speculating of course.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
We could have saved a lot of time if y'all had just answered Helsing with "tone"
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:We could have saved a lot of time if y'all had just answered Helsing with "tone" "accuracy" would also be appropriate. Trabisnikof posted:I 100% believe that Vital Signs believes the things he is posting. Two people can hold good faith positions that are not reconcilable. This is true, and I should remember that. Trabisnikof posted:But maybe the resulting long and drawn out discussion of the definition of the word "encourage" might be part of why that post got the hammer? I'm speculating of course. yah, it's almost like it was designed to do so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
Motherfucker what is inaccurate about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I 100% believe that Vital Signs believes the things he is posting. Two people can hold good faith positions that are not reconcilable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:The post got the hammer because of who the author was. It's really that simple. This is great stuff. I'm sure every post he makes in the trump thread has resulted in a probation if that's the case. oh, it hasn't? fuuuuuuuck.... your persecution complex is going to have a hard time with that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
Also amused at the lowkey assertion that it's wrong to assume the worst of Chuck Schumer: Genocide Proponent and Apartheid Enabler in ones posts
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
A simple act of doublethink is all you need to demonstrate its inaccuracy. Remember how yesterday we believed that a ballot is just a meaningless list of random names with no relationship to candidates running for office, because that was momentarily a convenient belief? Today we just choose to believe for this single moment that there's no such thing as 'whipping' and "Senate Minority Whip" is just a silly nickname like "Bill" or "Billy" or "Mac" or "Buddy", and boom "there will be no penalty for confirming Coat-Hanger McRapeHands, it's fine if you vote for him" is just a statement of fact and not a tacit encouragement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:The post got the hammer because of who the author was. It's really that simple. Well certainly, the fact that the op has 25+ probations in dnd for similar things must have weighed into the decision to give a 6er instead of doing nothing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:This is great stuff. I'm sure every post he makes in the trump thread has resulted in a probation if that's the case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Is he really encouraging them to vote yes though? Do you feel that is an accurate statement? Explicitly telling people there will be no consequence for a course of action is a form of encouragement, yes. "That diamond doesn't belong to you but if you were to choose to take it there will be no consequences" is a tacit (not active) encouragement of thievery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Explicitly telling people there will be no consequence for a course of action is a form of encouragement, yes. "That diamond doesn't belong to you but if you were to choose to take it there will be no consequences" is a tacit (not active) encouragement of thievery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:You just described free samples. Its not thievery unless you say the first part, and they deduce the second part on their own. Trader Joe's encourages theft!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
VitalSign's post was speculative but there's nothing about it that can be demonstrably proved to be inaccurate. It mostly comes down to how you interpret an inherently ambivalent situation (i.e. what do Democrats think and say to each other in private vs. what do they say in public). The fact you just think this is a bald faced inaccuracy rather than an ambiguous and debatable point of discussion doesn't reflect well on your powers of discernment. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:
There's a substantial body of political science literature examining how US politicians will have divergent public and private positions on certain issues. You can even track how people in congress will 'trade' difficult votes with each other in such a way that the Democrats or Republicans can pass an unpopular bill with just enough support while protecting vulnerable members from taking a vote that might hurt their re-election. It's also empirically demonstrable that in many cases the Democratic party "base" has views that diverge from the Democratic party donor class. Those there's nothing inherently ridiculous about the idea that the reason Schumer isn't punishing or threatening people who vote in favour of Kavanaugh is because he thinks it would upset Democratic donors if they obstructed a major judicial vote but also recognizes that it will be necessary for most Democrats to put up a show of opposition. Is that actually what is happening? I don't know. But there's nothing inherently ridiculous about the argument. So I really don't get why his specific argument is somehow out of bounds when it's predictions would be broadly in-line with plenty of scholarly analysis of politicians and voting. We can even substantiate his prediction by pointing to other examples where a Democrats actions and their stated positions noticeably diverge. We can also note that this isn't random: it tends to happen in a specific direction (i.e. many Democrats talk like left-liberals or social democrats when addressing their own constituents but govern like pro business centre-right liberals). I think the fact you automatically decided his statement was so self evidently absurd that it doesn't even deserve to be treated seriously is "very revealing", to use your own words. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:yah, it's almost like it was designed to do so. Nobody is forcing half the thread to get super pedantic over the word "encouraged" when any competent English speaker with a passing familiarity with US congressional politics should be perfectly capable of understanding the idea that the Democrats might have one position they state in public and a seperate position that they keep to themselves (or that the public position would be anti-Trump while the private position is to just keep the donors happy while putting up enough kabuki theatre to keep the average voter complacent). If people choose to get pedantic over the phrasing rather than addressing the core idea there (which is hardly ridiculous) then that really says more about how they are inclined to debate in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Trader Joe's encourages theft!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:Yes, when he said his statement there were TONS of people asking if the Manchin types would be punished for doing just like they did before and voting for the horrible chud SCOTUS guy, even as K's numbers dropped in polling Manchin and other losers waffled around and did stunts like taking meetings with him and all. Their literal leader in the senate saying 'nah you won't be punished' was encouragement Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:signing off on Kavanaugh is good, you see. for reasons. absolutely unrelated to the need to own the libs theCalamity posted:If he’s saying that no one would be punished for voting for the dude who wants to force women to have babies, then yeah, he’s encouraging it. It’s a very accurate statement. Wtf is even the point of having a caucus if you're not going to whip people into line? Who's even held accountable for literally anything? Why the gently caress would anyone trust a party that never maintains a consistent record of voting for the ideals it professes to adhere to during every single campaign? FREE HALL PASSES FOR EVERYONE! WOOHOO! Some Trump Thread regular will probably deign to hold my hand through some Real Politik bullshit excuse, when they know perfectly well that the GOP would throw a pol like that out on their rear end the moment they pulled that poo poo. Brave New World fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Sep 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
Brave New World posted:Wtf is even the point of having a caucus if you're not going to whip people into line? Your mistake was in assuming that the Democratic party existed for any other purpose than to perpetuate itself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:You just described free samples. Its not thievery unless you say the first part, and they deduce the second part on their own. ...what? Do you go to stores where they're fuckin coy with the samples? Do you have some kinda weird rear end store where you gotta tease the samples a bit?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
"Now I'm gonna set this plate of samples out and if someone took one they wouldn't get in trouble but I'm not gonna tell anyone what to do...." ~ a normal grocery store employee at a real normal store
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
If you take ALL the samples, it'd be weird, but there probably wouldn't be any actual consequences.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:53 |
|
|
Thievery kind of needs to reach a threshold beyond being implied as consequence free. Taking an extra sample on the sly, jumping a turnstile or being on a lightrail without a ticket, maybe nobody knows or says anything, but its kind of a jump from driving off with a crate of stolen mangoes in a car you stole from an ex who let you drive it a few times before. You can say you thought it'd be ok, but nobody has to believe it just cause you thought you'd get away with it. What I'm saying is everyone who voted for Kavanaugh is a criminal, even if they did it cause they'll get away with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2018 22:40
|
|