Trolling (split from Quick Forum Questions)

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Kittenpuncher said:

I'm still trying to figure that out iNow Xd

If you don’t know, then how could you post previously in the affirmative? 

Edited April 16, 2022 by iNow

[Kittenpuncher]

On 4/16/2022 at 2:56 PM, iNow said:

If you don’t know, then how could you post previously in the affirmative? 

In the affirmative? As in how did I say yes? A couple different reasons. It maybe wanted me to say that. It's always trying to influence my posts and stuff. But I am working on being better able to resist that sort of thing. I got pretty good at resisting it at a few points. Which makes it sort of significant that it's become so difficult, I think. If anything it's probably a very large number of people working together, that causes it.

I'm sorry, for whatever I did, that makes me deserve this. But there are benevolent things in my mind, sometimes. It's weird how much is trying to separate me from them

But those things also tell me that I'm innocent, and they don't try to make me do anything bad, and the things they say make more sense than the relentless brainwashers ever do. 

And usually I'm pretty sure-set about believing that I'm innocent, which the brainwashers don't want at all, even when I'm simply minding my own business

They're not above calling God himself a liar, even, which is outright batshit crazy by like, anyone's standards, I think you'd agree with me on that

[iNow]

I’m sorry you’re hearing voices and think there are cabals of people out to get you, forcing you to post in online discussion forums like this one. I sincerely hope you receive the help you need and deserve. 

[TheVat]

On the topic of trolling:

Just registering my concern that some of the smartest minds on this site are currently wasting their cognitive skills on the infinite Escher staircase that is the Ketanji Brown Jackson thread.  You have a couple members who just are Not. Ever. Going. To. Concede. Any. Point.  No matter how well argued and factually supported.  

It's Spring in the northern hemisphere!  Go outside!  

 

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

infinite Escher staircase

That's gold!

[iNow]

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

Just registering my concern that some of the smartest minds on this site are currently wasting their cognitive skills on the infinite Escher staircase that is the Ketanji Brown Jackson thread

As we did in the gay marriage threads, and the universal healthcare threads, and the transgendered athlete threads, and the climate change threads, and the evolution threads, and the 9/11 truther threads, etc.

IMO it’s not a waste of cognitive skills to stand up tenaciously and with persistence for what’s right and defend shared principles in the face of those who want us to question whether or not facts even exist or if our neighbors and school teachers are grooming young children for sexual exploit and need to be exterminated. 

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

As we did in the gay marriage threads, and the universal healthcare threads, and the transgendered athlete threads, and the climate change threads, and the evolution threads, and the 9/11 truther threads, etc.

IMO it’s not a waste of cognitive skills to stand up tenaciously and with persistence for what’s right and defend shared principles in the face of those who want us to question whether or not facts even exist or if our neighbors and school teachers are grooming young children for sexual exploit and need to be exterminated. 

 Those same people one opposes may be applying the same qualities, in their minds, to their argument as oneself. There is no almighty referee to decide who is the most morally superior. Winning arguments doesn't change your opponent, but meeting in the middle might.`There are people who find ones beliefs genuinely repugnant, and that may well be positions we hold dear. Politics, ethics, morality are not based on a level of objective facts that we can all agree on much of the , like in science. In the light of that, getting on ones high horse and never dismounting will only ever foster continued dischordance.

It's funny really, being in science forum. All these intelligent people trained in or desire to follow the scientific method and who have an inherent appreciation of uncertainly, leave it behind when they enter the humanity forums.

[Peterkin]

22 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

getting on ones high horse and never dismounting will only ever foster continued dischordance.

What do you suppose happens to the guy who gets off his high horse and walks among them?

And why do you think 'the left' is generally perceived as soft, weak and lame? 

25 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

All these intelligent people trained in or desire to follow the scientific method and who have an inherent appreciation of uncertainly, leave it behind when they enter the humanity forums.

There is a distinction - however subtle - between scientific open-mindedness and abandoning one's principles. Science is relatively clear and well defined. Politics, philosophy and sociology are muddy. Unfortunately, it's the muddy bits that need a conscience.  

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

What do you suppose happens to the guy who gets off his high horse and walks among them?

And why do you think 'the left' is generally perceived as soft, weak and lame? 

There is a distinction - however subtle - between scientific open-mindedness and abandoning one's principles. Science is relatively clear and well defined. Politics, philosophy and sociology are muddy. Unfortunately, it's the muddy bits that need a conscience.  

And the conscience is subjective with many flavours. The trouble is too many think there's only one worth considering: their own.

[Peterkin]

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The trouble is too many think there's only one worth considering: their own.

It's the only one each of us has to answer to. Seeing another's POV is fine; siding with every other POV is impossible. How many ways can you divide you convictions?

[Genady]

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

It's the only one each of us has to answer to. Seeing another's POV is fine; siding with every other POV is impossible. How many ways can you divide you convictions?

Exactly. I have to answer to my conscience only. I can express my POV, if I want to. I can learn POVs of others and understand them, if I want to. There is nothing more can be done about them. If another person doesn't agree with my POV, it is not because they don't understand it, but because their POV is different. So, there is no point in explaining my POV again and again, is there?

[koti]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

As we did in the gay marriage threads, and the universal healthcare threads, and the transgendered athlete threads, and the climate change threads, and the evolution threads, and the 9/11 truther threads, etc.

IMO it’s not a waste of cognitive skills to stand up tenaciously and with persistence for what’s right and defend shared principles in the face of those who want us to question whether or not facts even exist or if our neighbors and school teachers are grooming young children for sexual exploit and need to be exterminated. 

Sure, because evolution, climate change and religion subjects equate to lesbian feminist activist professors of philosophy geting driven out of universities through witch hunts led by disturbed red haired morons who want to destroy peoples lives because they feel offended. Or young african american women who stigmatize Ketanji Brown nomination for being racist from the begining. 
Oh, and if anything uncomfortable will be left on the site after all the discussions run their course we can sweep it under the carpet by deleteing it right?

BTW, I wonder how Sirona is doing, is she already a single Mom or is she still working on her way to becoming one? 

[iNow]

I knew someone would bite at that apple. 😂 

Never said mine was the only correct POV. Thanks for playing, though. 

[koti]

24 minutes ago, iNow said:

I knew someone would bite at that apple. 😂 

Never said mine was the only correct POV. Thanks for playing, though. 

My pleasure. Watching the bias train for too long makes me want to comment, I gotta work on that.

[zapatos]

8 hours ago, StringJunky said:

It's funny really, being in science forum. All these intelligent people trained in or desire to follow the scientific method and who have an inherent appreciation of uncertainly, leave it behind when they enter the humanity forums.

This made me laugh as I've seen it frequently. People who on the science threads present coherent, logical and reasonable arguments that I cannot help but admire for their quality, will resort to hyperbole and emotion on the humanity forums. It seems so out of character when I see it that I have to follow subsequent comments before recognizing they were serious. 

[StringJunky]

36 minutes ago, zapatos said:

This made me laugh as I've seen it frequently. People who on the science threads present coherent, logical and reasonable arguments that I cannot help but admire for their quality, will resort to hyperbole and emotion on the humanity forums. It seems so out of character when I see it that I have to follow subsequent comments before recognizing they were serious. 

It's interesting, isn't it.

[beecee]

16 hours ago, Peterkin said:

And why do you think 'the left' is generally perceived as soft, weak and lame? 

Is it? Perhaps by the far loony right, they might.

16 hours ago, Peterkin said:

There is a distinction - however subtle - between scientific open-mindedness and abandoning one's principles. Science is relatively clear and well defined. Politics, philosophy and sociology are muddy. Unfortunately, it's the muddy bits that need a conscience.  

Ahhh, the old soft sciences that create so much conflict and disorder

I expressed an opinion the other day...well more an hypothesis, as I wasn't really sure about it. It basically said that the extreme politics of one side, is the excuse for the extreme politics of the other side....a balancing act if you will. I found this.....

 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/left-and-right-are-radicalizing-each-other/616914/

The Answer to Extremism Isn’t More Extremism;

America’s left and right are radicalizing each other, and the precedents from overseas are deeply unsettling.

Extract:

But anyone who is truly worried by these tendencies should fear the consequences of a second Trump administration even more. Anyone who actually cares about academic freedom, or the future of objective reporting, or the ideas behind the statues built to honor American democrats in the country’s public squares, must hope that Trump loses. If he wins a second term, extremism on the left will not be stopped. It will not grow quieter. Instead, extremism will spread, mutate into new forms, and gradually become entrenched in more areas of American life.

Radicalism of all kinds will spread, on the right as well as the left, because America will find itself deeply enmeshed in the same kind of death spiral that the country experienced in the 1850s, a form of negative politics that the British political scientist Roger Eatwell has called “cumulative extremism.” Eatwell described this phenomenon in an article about northern England in 2001, a moment when groups of radicalized white British men physically clashed with groups of radicalized British Muslims. At that time, there were deep economic, religious, and sociological sources for the violence. People in the far right felt themselves to be outside of politics, alienated from the Labour Party that most had once supported. The neighborhoods where both groups lived were poor and getting poorer.

It goes on...........................

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

16 hours ago, StringJunky said:

It's funny really, being in science forum. All these intelligent people trained in or desire to follow the scientific method and who have an inherent appreciation of uncertainly, leave it behind when they enter the humanity forums.

The point as I see it, is that science and the scientific method is supported by observational and experimental evidence. The humanities and other soft sciences, in the main, are all subjective. In that subjectivity, we have extreme views on both ends of the spectrum. Personally I present my views without too much concern whether they are left or right, rather that they reflect my morals and conscience and I hope are moderate in their intent. Others may disagree...that's there prerogative. I may disgree with others...that's my prerogative. 

Interesting finishing sentence at the conclusion of the article I posted above.....

"Americans don’t have outsiders who will help us get out of this death spiral. All we have is the power to vote" 

We have elections coming up in Australia next month, and while generally the two main parties, (Labor and Liberal) were pretty close, (Labor slightly left of centre:Liberal, slightly right of centre) that divide has now considerably widened, particularly with the advent of covid.

Edited April 23, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

12 minutes ago, beecee said:

America’s left and right are radicalizing each other, and the precedents from overseas are deeply unsettling.

I have seen many public examples of how the right manifests its radicalization. Can you point out public manifestations of left radicalism in the US?  

[StringJunky]

47 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I have seen many public examples of how the right manifests its radicalization. Can you point out public manifestations of left radicalism in the US?  

Abortion, LGBT, social welfare, nationalization, unfettered immigration..... that's if you lean far enough Right. If you can't see that from that perspective then you can't see the wood for the trees. When we are having a humanitarian discussion, we shouldn't be waving flags of undying loyalty to a cause. We might as well go to a football/soccer match. 

Edited April 23, 2022 by StringJunky

[beecee]

47 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I have seen many public examples of how the right manifests its radicalization. Can you point out public manifestations of left radicalism in the US?  

Public manifistations? I'm rather surprised how you seem to infer that there is no left radicalisation? Have you a communist party in North America? Isn't it a matter of opinion anyway? I mean what you see as right wing radicalisation, Trump will disagree. What Trump sees as left radicalisation, you would probably disagree, along with myself. Perhaps you need to read the article in full.

My view is as stated...or should I say my hypothesis is a stated. That is, the extreme of one political bias, promotes the extreme of the opposite political bias. 

 

Edited April 23, 2022 by beecee

[zapatos]

20 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Abortion, LGBT, social welfare, nationalization, unfettered immigration.....

Riots at the WTO conference in 1999 in Seattle, "Occupy" Wall Street, antifa, the Weather Underground, some of the violence at BLM rallies, violent confrontations against far-right rallies...

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Riots at the WTO conference in 1999 in Seattle, "Occupy" Wall Street, antifa, the Weather Underground, some of the violence at BLM rallies, violent confrontations against far-right rallies...

The list is endless. What is right or wrong depends on the subjective positions of the observer, which are honed by our experiences.

Edited April 23, 2022 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

The list is endless. What is right or wrong depends on the subjective positions of the observer, which are honed by our experiences.

One of the reasons the Right often seems worse than the Left is that the Right has so many obnoxious politicians that the Left does not match. Lots of TV time for them which amplifies their worst traits. Politicians on the Left may excuse bad behavior, but they don't typically encourage it.

[StringJunky]

14 minutes ago, zapatos said:

One of the reasons the Right often seems worse than the Left is that the Right has so many obnoxious politicians that the Left does not match. Lots of TV time for them which amplifies their worst traits. Politicians on the Left may excuse bad behavior, but they don't typically encourage it.

I know what you mean. Ron De Santis, MTG, Gaetz et al, they are almost caricatures. From a middle-of-the-road non-partisan uk position, the moderate US politics very much leans to the right, so the people I mentioned come across as quite rabid to me. MTG is just one scary mother...  

Edited April 24, 2022 by StringJunky

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

That is, the extreme of one political bias, promotes the extreme of the opposite political bias. 

Ok. People in the US demanding the rights and services we're accustomed to in Canada, Australia, France, Norway, Japan, etc. equate to people storming the Capitol with lead pipes and explosives to overturn a legitimate election. It's all very subjective.  

I don't subscribe to the Atlantic.