I think it's long overdue that we stop using "Trump" - it's unfair to the man as he isn't really behind a lot of his decisions. We need to replace it with "Putin" to make it more accurate
seems like as good a place to share this as any http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2018/09/the-rules-of-tribal-politics
It really isn't the right place, Os. You should start a thread about "whatever this is" if you want it discussed. Jeff didn't make his original post, which is "stuck" at the top of this sub-forum, in order to have discussions about various and sundry things like "The Rules of Tribal Politics," in my humble opinion. Just an FYI.
appreciate it, Deck. I've actually read through this sticky from start to finish, and so it seemed to me this morning Brennan's analysis was consistent with the history of "debate" in the D&D. But you're probably right, it deserves its own thread. I'll give it some thought.
I used to think that it was the right only (20 years ago). Then when I joined this forum in 2001 and came across D&D, I decided that I'd parody the conservative position for a laugh. I called myself "New Yorker" not only because I was living in NYC, but as a nod to the magazine's political satire in its cartoons. I figured liberals would get the inside joke. They didn't. I kept making it more and more ridiculous - one because it got boring, and two because I just wanted to see how far I could go until it finally was obvious. Everyone took me seriously - on both sides actually. Eventually I was banned and reincarnated as sweet lou. 10 years later, Clutch let me switch back to my old New Yorker account for a bit as a joke - and I made that way over the top to an incredibly obvious level as I wanted people to know it was a joke, and yet still people couldn't get I was being satirical. The ones who did get it were generally the ones who used satire themselves. Everyone else took what I wrote as my real position. So I think there's a lot of truth to this article on tribal politics. It's on both sides. And over the years when I challenge positions on the left, I notice they get upset and dogmatic. So yes, both sides are guilty and it did surprise me to see how something such as saying that the jury made the correct call on George Zimmerman upset people. I wish I had read this 20 years ago.
You know what, I'm not going to do this anymore, if you continue to troll, I'll just block you before you get me to say something unkind. You've proven yourself to be incapable of intelligent conversation, so you won't be missed if you can't control yourself. This back and forth ends now. Yeah not quite. I guess I just need to add you to the list of mindless trolls. I'm going to be quicker about that from here on out. If you think so then you don't understand what an ad hominem truly is. When one says "ad hominem" the are referring to an ad hominem logical fallacy... SMH are you STILL going off with your unhinged nonsense? You do realize that you opinion couldn't matter any less after the last 24 hours of your embarrassing yourself right?
actually you're wrong that ad hominem always refers to "ad hominem logical fallacy" . . . you might want to take a look at Douglas Walton's book on ad hominem arguments: http://www.uapress.ua.edu/product/Ad-Hominem-Arguments,933.aspx you can get it on amazon:
Me pointing out that only fools would ignore good advice isn't an example of an ad hominem logical fallacy. Hopefully you've learned something today, you're welcome. You can be a distraction OR you can suck but you can't be both. If Kap was actually a good QB, he would have spent VERY little time out of work. Unfortunately for him, he sucks at football AND decided to make himself a distraction with his ridiculous antics. Jackie Robinson was awesome at baseball so you just disrespect him to compare him to an idiot scrub like Kap.
I know I'm talking to a DNC propaganda bot and that this won't be productive, but brain dead propaganda like the kind you spew shouldn't go unchallenged. Sounds like the same kind of nonsense people used to say in defense of other garbage QB's like Tim Tebow, Mark Sanchez, or Vince Young. Anyway, I know the reason you support that scrub Kap and I know it has nothing at all to do with football so there's really no reason to discuss it further. Suffice it to say that if he was any good, he'd be employed as a QB in the NFL. You can't expect that poster to know literally anything. If you think of him as an NPC, he'll make a lot more sense.
For regulars, it wasn't an issue of not getting "the joke" but rather the dishonesty and the attitudes it encouraged. Besides, jokes are usually owned up to once they're exposed and called out on it.
Yet no one complained about my "dishonesty" until AFTER I came clean and started positing honestly. I was never exposed because I kept in character... Which let's really be honest... There was a level of Truth to which is why it was belieVable
