dholliday
deconstructed rep
nope
Current Affairs The Far Left
- Thread starter dholliday
- Start date
- Status
nope
Actually, I referred to your posting behavior as trolling, not to you as a troll. If I wanted to call you a troll, I would say "You are a troll." But instead I said, "You are clearly on another troll, just like your Coulter post yesterday, yes?". The reason being is that today you posted some right-wing opinion piece that was poorly-reasoned and full of strawmen, and called it "an oldie but goodie" and yesterday you said to the forum we should "listen to the prophet Ann Coulter." This is very strange behavior from a self-proclaimed liberal. So I assume some, but not all, of your posts are simply out to troll/wind-up for amusement (and note, again, the distinction between calling you versus some of your posting behavior a "troll").
Apparently working class folks in urban areas.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
The " should we listen to Anne Coulter?" was the standfirst of The Guardian article i quoted...you know, that famous rightwing news site?
and she's a prophet because she's called a lot of things right, not least Trump winning waaaaay back when everyone thought he was just a joke.
you interpret anyone saying the above as trolling...you see the defective reasoning now? you won't, because you don't like to be challenged...which was precisely the point the oldie-but-goodie article was making.
all very predictable behaviour.
dandydan
Player Valuation: £40m
Logged in to post this. But they will ignore and silently approve of this brave, tolerant "man"
We are going in circles. I have no issue with being challenged. But obviously the intellectual content of what is supposed to challenge me actually has to be intellectually challenging. Nothing you posted was remotely that. Instead, it was some puff piece from The Guardian about Ann Coulter--someone, it appears, you find to be smart and prophetic. I find her to be a vile, selfish hypocrite. And you also posted some poorly-reasoned long-winded whinge about a "liberal" strawman; and again, it appears you found this article to be intellectually stimulating. I didn't, it was inane and specious.
Our conversation has thus far been this:
--you post a pointless puff-piece about Ann Coulter from The Guardian and some other Op-Ed from a right-wing fabulist, the latter which you praise as an "oldie but goodie."
--I point out that what you posted was poorly-reasoned and full of strawman arguments.
--you retort that liberals are brainwashed and point to academic articles about Groupthink 2.0, and say that liberals don't want to be challenged.
So in this alternate universe of logic, you, as a self-proclaimed liberal, can post whatever dumb right-wing article you find intellectually stimulating, and when someone suggests the opposite: what you posted is intellectually vapid, you suggest they [liberals] are brainwashed, that they exhibit Groupthink, that they "don't like to be challenged." This is childish. Rather than resort to tired accusations, why not just defend the intellectual content of what you posted?
Last edited:
dholliday
deconstructed rep
see what i mean about the brainwashing? you actually said i was trolling, and the post directly after called me a coward for not engaging with someone who's not worth my time because he only sees racism in my posts...you two caused me to write that comment about Groupthink 2.0
Legs, unwittingly, even further confirmed the existence of this groupthink among yous.
that's the circle we're going round...it's not of my making as i can step out at any time. yous tho' are stuck inside it.
You truly are enlightened. Show us the way
dholliday
deconstructed rep
i'm trying, jimmy
dholliday
deconstructed rep
oh and this is another example...you yourself are unwittingly defending that content.
the themes of those articles are present in my posts, i've even said so quite clearly. you aren't seeing those words, because you've blindspotted them.
you yourself aren't countering the argument, instead all you have are tired accusations ("trolling"..."the article is rightwing" etc).
you turn it 180 degrees in your head so that i'm the one doing the "tired accusations" .
brainwashing...social programming...blind tribalism...call it what you will, but it's blatantly there.
with @LinekersLegs it's also there, she had a choice of posts to counter:
- you saying i'm trolling because in this thread called "Far Left" i posted the very lefty Guardian asking if the Left should perhaps listen to Anne Coulter, and thereafter posting the more centrist Spectator claiming the Left have no counter- arguments because all they do is belittle those with different opinions by calling them things like trolls. your reply was so perfectly textbook, it proved the points Coulter and the Spectator were making.
- she also could've have replied to Cheese calling me a "coward" because i no longer waste my time with those who label me racist.
- she also could've replied to some of the content of those articles.
instead she focussed on my Groupthink thesis and implied my own name-calling of yous as "salty" and "brainwashed" was just as bad as being called a "troll" and "coward". an objective observer would first consider my own 'name-calling' was in response to yours, and then he would consider "salty" and "brainwashed" are backed up by sound argument, but "troll" and "coward" are not.
...unwittingly, all three of you are defending the content of those two articles.
LOL. Okay. Sounds good. I am defending the content of that article by calling it "poorly reasoned," where as you are not defending (??) it by calling it an "oldie but goodie." Makes perfect sense.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
that's why it's unwitting lol
Nothing "unwitting" about reading an article, judging it to be quite specious, then calling it "poorly reasoned and specious." But if you want to call that "defending" go ahead.
Just to be clear, the themes present in Bartholomew's article are the themes you agree with and are present in your previous posts?
It's almost like someone has been unwittingly brainwashed into ising terms like liberal elite and Islamic crisis.
I was responding to your post because I believed you to be doing the thing that you have multiple times lectured was wrong and ineffective - I personally do find “brainwashed” is an insult and is attacking a persons character rather the point they are making which is why I rarely use it.
How does repeatedly saying that we are all “brainwashed”, even if you believe it to be true, make us more likely to listen to what you say are reasoned arguments to stop us being brainwashed? Why not just let the reasoned arguments, if that is what they are and you have faith in them, speak for themselves rather than repeatedly insult? If you truly want us to discuss the articles why not reference a particular section of the text that you found was effective and expand on its points?
In that vein there was a section of the 2nd article that really jumped out at me.
I don’t think it was “feminist doctrine” to assume that Trump would be hurt by his comments, even the author admits they were “vulgar” and “arrogant” which are attitudes that typically impact every candidates support regardless of gender. Several members of his own campaign team thought it was “game over” and suggested he resign - is the author suggesting they too were the liberal elite infected by feminist doctrine or just people understandably concerned that “grab them by the [Poor language removed]” might not be a persuasive message to evangelicals? I saw nobody, elite or otherwise, claim that “all women would vote against Trump”, that is a ridiculous strawman.
But my real issue comes in the last section “ordinary women took a different view. A majority of white women voted for Trump”. This is clearly an example of the author doing what he complained that the dastardly elite did earlier in the article “ distort the facts or omit them.” Here were the exit polls ,
The author almost certainly knew that only 41% of women voted for Trump but that doesn’t fit his predetermined argument so he distorts it by imposing a definition of “ordinary women” that includes only white women (which is weird all by itself).
Even then he fails to state it was 52% of white women presumably hoping that the phrase majority would be inferred as a much higher percentage - most people who were being objective yet avoiding too many stats would typically refer to that aa a “bare” or “small” majority to avoid misinterpretation.
If a Clinton supporter had referenced her clearer majorities among non-white men (65% Hispanic men, 85% black men according to analysis by Pew based on voter files http://www.people-press.org/2018/08...he-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/) to make some wider claim that she did well with male voters you would have rightfully ridiculed it as sophistry yet are holding this up as part of an argument that should make us shed our supposed tribal brainwashing?
Overall I felt the author provides very little data or evidence to back up any of his conclusions or provoke debate. Take another statment “They have been taught that capitalism is inherently bad” - do you believe this to be true and if so why? I’m sitting slap bang in the middle of the Bay Area chock full of people I guess the author would call “liberal elite” and capitalism seems widely supported in terms of a desire for independent, profit making companies allowed to conduct free trade. There is support to move to “Medicare for all” but that still has a lot of private industry involvement, just that the health insurance is provided by the government rather than private industry - is that so anti capitalist that you would prefer an entirely privatized healthcare system in Germany? The anti capitalist moves - tarriffs on trade and support for uncompetitive industries like coal mining or the outdated steel plants come from Trump and are a significant reason why a lot of business minded friends don’t support Trump irrespective of some of his other views.
FWIW, I agree with the author that education was the primary factor in who supported/opposed Trump, especially comared to previous candidates. I found this article far more persuasive https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/ and it also includes so e possible reasons why that your article doesn’t discuss that I think worth considering.
Last edited:
- Status