Politics The Hangar Politics Thread

[Lore]

There have been facts raised in response, have there?

I think you've exhausted everyone's capacity to care, unfortunately. Maybe pick one issue to discuss at a time.

 

[faible]

Then work through the data points and tell me what you think.

Why waste my time?

You don't actually care about the data points; you care about the narrative. Once you've convinced yourself of the narrative, it becomes irrelevant to you whether the data points underlying them are accurate or not.

If I fact check a data point and say it's incorrect you'll; dismiss the source (whatever you disagree with will be unreliable, whatever you agree with will be acceptable), call me a journalist (presumably meaning I'm somehow part of this coverup), or just simply ignore it (like you have done now twice relating to the > 4000 legal cases involving Trump or his companies prior to 2016).

You've built this narrative over the long term, you've convinced yourself of the narrative, anything that doesn't fit the narrative is dismissed or ignored.

I think you've exhausted everyone's capacity to care, unfortunately. Maybe pick one issue to discuss at a time.

Also this. The time it takes to debunk one single claim is significantly more than the time it takes to make that claim. So when Bruno's post contains at least half a dozen distinct claims, the capacity of someone to repeatedly waste their time sourcing, checking, and rebutting those claims only for the poster to simply dismiss it all for <reasons> means it's simply not worth the time. Trump relies on this, he makes claims by the hundreds or thousands that simply overwhelm people's ability to fact check them.

As I said this morning Bruno:

If you want to have a reasonable discussion, keep all the conspiracy stuff out of it.

You rely on the same tactics Trump does; throw an overwhelming about of shit at people until they stop bothering.

You're quite welcome to believe the narrative you've created, I really do hope that Trump is all the things you believe he is, and that everyone that says otherwise is wrong.

 

[BrunoV]

So I'm called a conspiracy theorist (and it is a pejorative, don't pretend that it isn't) by people who don't know, and who refuse to engage, the substantive content?

I would love to be able to say what I really think in response.

 

[faible]

So I'm called a conspiracy theorist (and it is a pejorative, don't pretend that it isn't) by people who don't know, and who refuse to engage, the substantive content?

I would love to be able to say what I really think in response.

You're not being silenced, let's not pretend that's the case.

If you want to discuss something, maybe don't do that thing where you simply throw an absolute deluge of stuff at someone, demanding they go through point by point to debunk or dispute it, whilst you don't at all stick to the facts.

Saying someone 'doesn't know' the content because they don't agree with the narrative you've constructed around the content, is not at all engaging in reasonable discussion.

And perhaps don't complain about being subject to a pejorative, when you throw multiple insults at anyone who disagrees with your narrative construction around events.

 

[dank420_]

So I'm called a conspiracy theorist (and it is a pejorative, don't pretend that it isn't) by people who don't know, and who refuse to engage, the substantive content?

I would love to be able to say what I really think in response.

Seriously dude you look like the drunk bloke at the pub who wants to punch on with someone/anyone.

People are engaging and after studying what's available to them, they think you're wrong. You're not gonna be changing any minds.

Go bake a cake or something.

 

[faible]

Seriously dude you look like the drunk bloke at the pub who wants to punch on with someone/anyone.

People are engaging and after studying what's available to them, they think you're wrong. You're not gonna be changing any minds.

Go bake a cake or something.

Cake sounds good

 

[dank420_]

Cake sounds good

Here LOOK! Here's a ****in recipe.

READ IT!!!!!

Lemon Drizzle Cake {Easiest EVER Recipe!}

This easy Lemon Drizzle Cake recipe is a failsafe, works-every-time method. It's a favourite, classic bake. So simple and delicious.

www.tamingtwins.com

 

[faible]

Here LOOK! Here's a ****in recipe.

READ IT!!!!!

Lemon Drizzle Cake {Easiest EVER Recipe!}

This easy Lemon Drizzle Cake recipe is a failsafe, works-every-time method. It's a favourite, classic bake. So simple and delicious.

www.tamingtwins.com

That actually does sound quite easy.

 

[jannissary]

You rely on the same tactics Trump does; throw an overwhelming about of shit at people until they stop bothering.

You're quite welcome to believe the narrative you've created, I really do hope that Trump is all the things you believe he is, and that everyone that says otherwise is wrong.

it's the ben shapiro school of debating. throw as many tangentially (emphasis) ideas as possible at your opposition to make them confused and make inferior points

 

[Beerfish]

Please don't get personal. That's a message for everyone. I don't want to infract people and (I presume) people don't want to be infracted. We have a rich tapestry of different folks here. If you can't make your points without getting personal I'll have no choice but to remove you from the discussion.

Thanks.

 

[jmoo wan]

Here LOOK! Here's a ****in recipe.

READ IT!!!!!

Lemon Drizzle Cake {Easiest EVER Recipe!}

This easy Lemon Drizzle Cake recipe is a failsafe, works-every-time method. It's a favourite, classic bake. So simple and delicious.

www.tamingtwins.com

there’s no lemons in the list of ingredients!! what the **** is this shit you are peddling?

 

[katana]

these politics threads on club boards are a guilty pleasure of mine. norf board had to shut down basically all their political discussions due to the endless bickering, SLF bombed yet another account.

yes im aware that it's pathetic that i follow these things

 

[jannissary]

these politics threads on club boards are a guilty pleasure of mine. norf board had to shut down basically all their political discussions due to the endless bickering, SLF bombed yet another account.

yes im aware that it's pathetic that i follow these things

it's called a schadenfreude

 

[ant555]

Let them eat cake

The South Korean President seems like he does not want the people to have cake.

 

[Beerfish]

The South Korean President seems like he does not want the people to have cake.

 

[boncer34]

The South Korean President seems like he does not want the people to have cake.

He's never related more to his Northern counterpart then in the last week.

 

[faible]

He's never related more to his Northern counterpart then in the last week.

Sat down a week ago and looked North and though 'hmm, wouldn't be the worst example to follow'

 

[Kong]

Cake sounds good

no he doesnt

 

[faible]

no he doesnt

Never heard him speak, no idea how he sounds.

 

[BrunoV]

You're not being silenced, let's not pretend that's the case.

If you want to discuss something, maybe don't do that thing where you simply throw an absolute deluge of stuff at someone, demanding they go through point by point to debunk or dispute it, whilst you don't at all stick to the facts.

Saying someone 'doesn't know' the content because they don't agree with the narrative you've constructed around the content, is not at all engaging in reasonable discussion.

And perhaps don't complain about being subject to a pejorative, when you throw multiple insults at anyone who disagrees with your narrative construction around events.

I've had one post deleted and received a warning for the discussion in this chat.

So no, I cannot say what I really think.

And maybe you could have the humility to recognize that something as complicated as geopolitics requires an understanding of the deluge. But you're starting point is always the same and then you backtrack into the manipulative, (attempted) gaslighting as though you are ever prepared to have a 'reasonable' discussion.

A reasonable discussion would be to engage. But for you a reasonable discussion is to shut crucial information outside of the Overton Window while you're calling someone a conspiracy theorist. I preferred it when you were using AI to inaccurately summarise my posts.

When I say you're opinions are based on an irrelevant partisan view, it's not inherently personal as much as it might be blunt. That partisan view is irrelevant. US foreign policy, for example, has almost nothing to do with which party is in charge.

And you don't know the content. At the start of the most recent discussion you summarised what the NYT told you after you Googled the issue.

 

[BrunoV]

Seriously dude you look like the drunk bloke at the pub who wants to punch on with someone/anyone.

People are engaging and after studying what's available to them, they think you're wrong. You're not gonna be changing any minds.

Go bake a cake or something.

Studying what's available to them? That's pretty generous.

 

[dank420_]

Studying what's available to them? That's pretty generous.

I was talking about your posts.

 

[faible]

I've had one post deleted and received a warning for the discussion in this chat.

So no, I cannot say what I really think.

And maybe you could have the humility to recognize that something as complicated as geopolitics requires an understanding of the deluge. But you're starting point is always the same and then you backtrack into the manipulative, (attempted) gaslighting as though you are ever prepared to have a 'reasonable' discussion.

A reasonable discussion would be to engage. But for you a reasonable discussion is to shut crucial information outside of the Overton Window while you're calling someone a conspiracy theorist. I preferred it when you were using AI to inaccurately summarise my posts.

When I say you're opinions are based on an irrelevant partisan view, it's not inherently personal as much as it might be blunt. That partisan view is irrelevant. US foreign policy, for example, has almost nothing to do with which party is in charge.

And you don't know the content. At the start of the most recent discussion you summarised what the NYT told you after you Googled the issue.

deluge
personal insults

Bruno remains disinterested in discussion. Perhaps a blog is more suited to you?

A post being deleted isn’t you silenced. What is it with people frantically posting in public that they’re being silenced, that’s the opposite of being silenced.

There’s certainly things you can’t say free from repercussions however.

 

[Beerfish]

Studying what's available to them? That's pretty generous.

Have you ever visited SRP? There are people waiting online right now to argue with you about this stuff until the cows come home.

 

[Kong]

kids kids

youre both wrong