Woke or Resentful? Most Likely Neither

[_canpakes]

Hey, I’m not wanting to ruin anyone’s fun or somesuch, but perhaps a quick review on what those (((triple parentheses))) stand for, and how/where they originated, might be a good idea.

Unless maybe I missed a joke in the thread somewhere. It has been a busy day.

[_honorentheos]

Hey, I’m not wanting to ruin anyone’s fun or somesuch, but perhaps a quick review on what those (((triple parentheses))) stand for, and how/where they originated, might be a good idea.

Unless maybe I missed a joke in the thread somewhere. It has been a busy day.

This may have been posted to the wrong thread.

[_honorentheos]

I read your parenthetical. At some level you felt it shredded the article even if you then added a qualifying, "but if not that, then at least this". That's not informative and deserves to be criticized.

As to the second part, I just thought it was funny to point out something that I agree with in theory in terms of your question in the other thread but also am feeling critical of the general reduction of discussion on the board to stupid one liners. Generally speaking most of us know that religiosity isn't exactly reflective of one's political views while also knowing that a person who is a self-described Evangelical or Mormon is likely a conservative who would almost never dream of voting for a Democrat. While at least among older Americans there is some degree of social liberalism associated with atheism that has to be paired with one's economic views to get a reasonable sense of one's likely political affiliation. It made your comment to Water Dog seem shallow like you were seeking to score a point on a technicality rather than earn esteem by informing the discussion.

I"m not sure what you are even saying here. One, the discussion was with DocCam, not Water Dog.

True. I wasn't reading carefully and in my memory of skimming through the thread this morning had conflated the two into one dumb argument.

Two, DocCam argued, probably insincerely, that if you blame conservative voices for violent attacks (because those voices encouraged violent attacks), then you have to blame leftists for atheist attacks. Res Ipsa initially responded to problem here, which is "how are atheists voices encouraging atheist attacks?" I jumped in and noted the obvious that atheists aren't necessarily leftists such that you can equate the two. That's the obvious reply. It isn't informative because it's stating something obvious to someone almost certainly arguing in bad faith. I think well enough of the average reader to already know what I'm saying.

The thing is, it didn't need to be said precisely for the reason you state. It's a dumb comment on Cam's part that responding to with a technical gotcha but also blunt rhetorical question is not raising the conversation so much as meeting it where it was. I pointed it out in relation to the Vox article because it was amusing that the underlying identity issues Cam was globbing onto in making his attack (most of which I am finding more and more value in just ignoring because of the obvious) was at the center of a criticism of the Hidden Tribes article.

You're like, "You're missing the differences and clear implications" and I'm like, "No crap. That's the point."

[_canpakes]

Hey, I’m not wanting to ruin anyone’s fun or somesuch, but perhaps a quick review on what those (((triple parentheses))) stand for, and how/where they originated, might be a good idea.

Unless maybe I missed a joke in the thread somewhere. It has been a busy day.

This may have been posted to the wrong thread.

True, that comment would definitely apply better to the other thread. But, I see it being used by Doc in this one, as well.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

True, that comment would definitely apply better to the other thread. But, I see it being used by Doc in this one, as well.

I'm mocking EA who introduced it to box WD into an alt-right meme. The triple parens are used by anti-semites on 4chan and Reddit to "out" Jews who're perceived to be massaging a narrative, typically because Jews have worked their way into positions of influence, policymaking, finance, media and various other high status places. Good on them, by the way. I'm a fan of high achievers so whatevs. Basically I'm going META with EA's meme because he's attempting to color WD as a bigot therefore 'his opinion is invalid.'

META in this context is a sort of post-modernist take on self-referential language that becomes more and more recursive. It's like in inside joke that keeps going and going and you only get the meta-morphosis (heh) if you've been there from the beginning.

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

This may have been posted to the wrong thread.

True, that comment would definitely apply better to the other thread. But, I see it being used by Doc in this one, as well.

The issue I see, and am contributing to so hypocrisy, is commentary on other poster's superficial behavior at the expense of discussing the subject matter. It's one thing to debate the expression of a particular view or understanding. I don't want to pretend the board was a deep well of insightful discussion at all times in it's past, but it seems to be slipping further into a bit of a dark age currently as the quality of discussion has moved into the equivalent of a cable news four panel talking head shouting match compared to a reasonable, informative exchange of differing views. I'm as guilty as anyone in participating in that, so there's that. But it does make most of what is going on here these days seem...irrelevant.

[_Chap]

I don't want to pretend the board was a deep well of insightful discussion at all times in it's past, but it seems to be slipping further into a bit of a dark age currently as the quality of discussion has moved into the equivalent of a talking head shouting match compared to a reasonable, informative exchange of differing views

Yup. Sadly ...

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I don't want to pretend the board was a deep well of insightful discussion at all times in it's past, but it seems to be slipping further into a bit of a dark age currently as the quality of discussion has moved into the equivalent of a talking head shouting match compared to a reasonable, informative exchange of differing views

Yup. Sadly ...

That was perfect. All we need now is for KG and SS to pound out some insults and the picture is complete

- Doc

[_Chap]

Do you know, there used to be a guy on this board called 'whyme'.

God, I really miss him. He was always so on topic and so scrupulously reasonable in his argumentation.

[_EAllusion]

I'm mocking EAllusion who introduced it to box Water Dog into an alt-right meme. The triple parens are used by anti-semites on 4chan and Reddit to "out" Jews who're perceived to be massaging a narrative, typically because Jews have worked their way into positions of influence, policymaking, finance, media and various other high status places. Good on them, by the way. I'm a fan of high achievers so whatevs. Basically I'm going META with EAllusion's meme because he's attempting to color Water Dog as a bigot therefore 'his opinion is invalid.'

META in this context is a sort of post-modernist take on self-referential language that becomes more and more recursive. It's like in inside joke that keeps going and going and you only get the meta-morphosis (heh) if you've been there from the beginning.

- Doc

What actually occurred is that you inferred that Trump had no role in encouraging anti-Semitism or a specific anti-Semetic attack because Trump issued a boilerplate statement condemning the attack. No anti-Semite would do that, the logic goes. First, that already starts with a strawman as there's a difference between accusing someone of being an anti-Semite and accusing someone of irresponsibly using anti-Semitic rhetoric for political gain, but perhaps that's a distinction without a difference. What I did in response to your argument is remind that he has promoted anti-Semitic messaging and that his rote denunciations don't mean a lot when he has a habit of contradicting them both before and after he makes them. I talked specifically about Trump's inflaming Soros conspiracy theorists and attacks on globalists that echo almost perfectly anti-Semitic discourse on the alt-right. I put globalists in parentheses as a means to mockingly highlight how that is used as code to refer to Jews. This was in response to you.

viewtopic.php?p=1152907#p1152907

Whatever "mirror" you imagine yourself to be doing, it's deeply confused about what its target is and mostly just leaves you with a series of posts that make you look like a raging anti-Semite for posterity.