Re: The Conspiratorial Clowns

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

This lower forum is about Doc, Chap, Gunnar, Gad, Jersey, Lem, you (Res), Icarus and holding the hard line for a single ideology and making excuses for crappy awful behavior because the ideology is more important than anything.

Preceded in the same post by:

let's accept this as the basis for this conversation and every conversation on this board... I see things through my own biases. I am a terrible writer. I am even worse with logic...

Got it.

What single ideology do the above-named possess and defend? It’s a pretty divergent set of people with different approaches to life.

Also, didn’t Cutellus crap himself recently? I remember a pretty extensive post he made where he described, in detail, crapping himself. I’d post it, but he deleted all his posts, so I can’t search for it. I remember he went on and on about him crapping himself, sitting in his own feces, and what a mess it made. Kinda a gross, but it might explain his coprolalia.

- Doc

[Gadianton]

lol

[Jersey Girl]

Atlantic Mike: posts homophobic slur
Cultellus: reposts homophobic slur, attacks guy who didn't post homophobic slur as a bigot for not objecting to other homophobic slurs
Cultellus: (after inconsistency is pointed out): mildly criticizes homophobic slur as "not good," pivots to attacking person who did not use homophobic slur, doesn't call person who actually used homophobic slur a bigot

I’ll add:

“Does not ask the offending poster to stop using homophobic slurs, even after saying that everyone else should do so and could have done so in the past, on the claimed theory that such a request would work.”

In other words: Won’t commit himself to his own demands of others, because he knows that his demands are BS.

The answer is easy. He's trolling. He's never stopped trolling. If he were here to actively participate in topical discussion, he would.

But he's not.

He doesn't have the intellectual chops to participate in discussion. And believe me when I tell you, it doesn't take a genius to do so. How do I know? I participate here and I am certainly no brainiac.

[honorentheos]

Atlanticmike,

What post of yours from, say, September, is the one you feel was the most substantive rebuttal of progressive politics? I'm curious. I don't think you are driving anything back, personally, except maybe intelligent discourse. But I don't read most threads anymore because the OP title tells me in advance behind that door lies madness. So I may have missed it.

What a stupid request. Jesus Christ.

The board is and always has been a mixed bag. But something it seems to have lost is engagement in debate over the substance and facts around a particular topic. Is it stupid to ask Atlanticmike to point out what he would consider the most substantive post he made in rebuttal to progressive political theory? If he answers it with an example that demonstrates that is actually taking place then I think it was worthy. If there isn't an example, it's helpful to know the posting here in rebuke of progressive politics isn't substantial in content.

I don't think much of what takes place these days is substantial debate from most parties. But really, Atlanticmike suggested he and possibly you are taking the fight to progressives and frankly I don't see it. I doubt Atlanticmike has a coherent political view, really, and is mostly parroting the quips and kinds of ad hominem mud slinging one sees portrayed as political debate on network television and talk shows. But so are his opponents here. So it's not exactly his fault.

Anyway, I'm interested in what he chooses to put forward as his example. It would be valuable as an exercise.

[Res Ipsa]

I was waiting for you to call out actual homosexism with the same level of vindictiveness you’ve displayed toward people who have not engaged in homosexism. But you failed. Faux outrage.

You not only don’t see the gorilla, you don’t even see the basketball.

Res, let's accept this as the basis for this conversation and every conversation on this board: I (Cultellus) am fatally flawed. My flaws are not just obvious, they are so egregious they are life-threatening. I miss things. I see things through my own biases. I am a terrible writer. I am even worse with logic. I did not vote in the last election. I do not rescue kittens. I smoke as much meth as I can, and I sell the rest to children mostly. I am not a liberal or I am a liberal but too stupid. I am not right wing or I am right wing and also stupid. Assume everything I do is not just flawed, it is also just flat out wrong.

Now, given that I am so messed up and evil and wrong that what I do and say is nothing but chum for you and your friends here, what are you going to do? Are you going to take Atlanticmike to the shed, whoop his ass, comment on what he said, moderate his post, move it to prison? Or, like everything around here, will you just point out how bad of a poster/writer/human I am so all the crap that I said is not relevant and not as important as your favorite people and favorite ideology?

This is the whole damn point of this board, right? It is the whole damn point of how moderation happens now. This lower forum is about Doc, Chap, Gunnar, Gad, Jersey, Lem, you (Res), Icarus and holding the hard line for a single ideology and making excuses for crappy awful behavior because the ideology is more important than anything. I have given you all you needed about me since I got here. I have shown you how imperfect I am, and that I will be imperfect forever. And, that is used as a crutch for you and your clown posse to continue to hold this hard line for a single ideology and to absolutely hammer the everloving crap out of the people that post without kudos and praise.

It is simple to post here. Easy. Come on here, harvest old quotes from Ajax, mine pictures from google, and post racist crap from 4Chan . Easy. Call ourselves victims of the vast right wing conspiracy, easier. Insult half the country and praise ourselves. Super easy. And then sit on our hands while insults are made that are bigoted and just wrong, also easy. If my failures as a poster make it even easier for you, you are very very welcome. If my failures as a human make it even easier for you to go along with a single ideology, consider it my gift.

Gorilla.

I will accept "this" as the basis for conversation when I see it reflected in your posts. To date, I see no evidence in your posts that you believe you are "fatally flawed" -- only that others are. I see no evidence that you believe you are "wrong" -- only that others are. All I see is trolling and fake outrage directed toward people you think are on one side of the political spectrum. You posted all those words, and yet have not condemned Atlantic Mike as a homosexist, accused him of thinking homosexism is funny, or approving of homosexism. Nope. As from your arrival, you are unwilling to own your own behavior and keep wanting to talk about others.

You're wrong about the "whole damn point of this board," as you have been from the beginning. You've judged people in the same highly bigoted manner you regularly accuse others of. You can't even correctly identify or describe people's ideologies. You just do your usual black and white thinking thing and divide people into two groups. You pretend to be offended when someone uses any group label, but you treat a bunch of us as if we were in lock step. If you only had the faintest grasp of the history of interactions on this board, you'd understand what a complete howler that is.

And you are wrong about "how moderation happens now." The three of us do our absolute best to moderate as clones of Shades. If you don't think we're doing that, lay out your case and I'll be happy to either respond or work with xeno and canpakes to correct any departures from what Shades expects of us.

I don't harvest quotes from other boards, mine pictures from Google, or post racist crap from 4chan. You identifying me with that is plain and simple bigotry -- the very thing you pretend to hate. I don't believe in a "vast right wing conspiracy." I don't think you'll find me insulting half the country or praising the other half. All of those judgments about me are your own personal bigotry.

You run around the board attacking and insulting people left and right, but when your hypocrisy is exposed, then it's pity poor Cultellus, getting kicked around by all the meanies. That part of your act is as phony as your faux outrage.

In the black, I'm going to stay consistent with what I've told you: I am not responsible for the speech of other adults on this forum.
In the red, I will continue to enforce rules as Shades has written them.

[canpakes]

This board does not depend on substantive content, it is a religious board and godfuckingdamnit we allow ONE TRUE RELIGION around here, and it is not the one that lets people not align with the favorite political party even if they say bigoted things.

Every so often you let slip this as the real reason why you tried to trash the board … because it doesn’t have the political ideology that you want it to have.

If the ideology that you want it to have doesn’t stand up to robust debate, then the only option you act on is to try to destroy the conversation.

You’re the most blatant and excessive example of the very thing that you complain about.

[Res Ipsa]

do our absolute best to moderate as clones of Shades.

In the red, I will continue to enforce rules as Shades has written them.

Thank you.

You’re welcome.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

What a stupid request. Jesus Christ.

The board is and always has been a mixed bag. But something it seems to have lost is engagement in debate over the substance and facts around a particular topic. Is it stupid to ask Atlanticmike to point out what he would consider the most substantive post he made in rebuttal to progressive political theory? If he answers it with an example that demonstrates that is actually taking place then I think it was worthy. If there isn't an example, it's helpful to know the posting here in rebuke of progressive politics isn't substantial in content.

I don't think much of what takes place these days is substantial debate from most parties. But really, Atlanticmike suggested he and possibly you are taking the fight to progressives and frankly I don't see it. I doubt Atlanticmike has a coherent political view, really, and is mostly parroting the quips and kinds of ad hominem mud slinging one sees portrayed as political debate on network television and talk shows. But so are his opponents here. So it's not exactly his fault.

Anyway, I'm interested in what he chooses to put forward as his example. It would be valuable as an exercise.

Honor, I think the real problem we’re dealing with is broader than Atlantic Nobslurry’s inability to form a cohesive thought about anything, much less political identity. We’re old enough to remember what life was like before the Internet, and because we’re not completely retarded I think we can see what ‘algorithmic psychosis’ is doing to drive the sociopolitical divisions we’re seeing manifest today.

I’m not quite sure when Internet media algorithms started to determine topical feeds, rather than whatever news editors decided to publish, but the bottom line is if AM ‘likes’ and clicks on portapotty sex videos the algorithmic feed will give him more portapotty sex videos (or GQP talking points - same thing really).

Unfortunately for people with a broad range of interests, or a desire to stretch their palates as it were, these algorithms really do a good job at narrowing down the buffet to anger sandwiches and fear salads. So, as my oft-referred-to author John Naisbitt (RIP, he died this year) would say, “People have access to the world, but choose to exist in smaller and smaller bubbles of self-affirming delusion.” With the costs to publish approaching zero dollars for the average person, this has created a content explosion that humans just can’t process. It takes a LOT of self-discipline to read a variety of good opinions on any matter of importance, which most people don’t have.

When humans can wake up every day and read a new story on the shittiest new Democratic politician who eats children and schtups babies, or how GQP’ers enlist police departments to shoot black people and harass marijuana enthusiasts this brave new world pinholes people like AM with a view of reality framed with frequent anecdotal stories. And you're asking these people to explain why they hold these views when they don’t know themselves. They get caught in a psycho-dopamine addiction that serves to ping their brain’s outrage center, and then they get a good boy dopamine hit. Ask an addict with a drug-addled brain why they keep taking drugs, and quite often the first thing out of their mouth is, “I dunno.” It takes therapy, often a lot of therapy, to crack open their layers of stupidity and rote behavior, before they even understand that there was a person their making choices before they became dopamine seeking robots. And a lot of them are angry and defensive when you try to get them to root around and assess their own minds. They freak the “F” out.

Perhaps that’s why you’re seeing less and less people not only not interested in discussion, but a clear inability to do so because of their psychosis induced by these information peddlers.

- Doc

[ceeboo]

Ask an addict with a drug-addled brain why they keep taking drugs, and quite often the first thing out of their mouth is, “I dunno.” It takes therapy, often a lot of therapy, to crack open their layers of stupidity and rote behavior, before they even understand that there was a person their making choices before they became dopamine seeking robots. And a lot of them are angry and defensive when you try to get them to root around and assess their own minds. They freak the F out.

Well, I guess we can add drug addiction to the long list of things that you have no clue about.

[Atlanticmike]

The board is and always has been a mixed bag. But something it seems to have lost is engagement in debate over the substance and facts around a particular topic. Is it stupid to ask Atlanticmike to point out what he would consider the most substantive post he made in rebuttal to progressive political theory? If he answers it with an example that demonstrates that is actually taking place then I think it was worthy. If there isn't an example, it's helpful to know the posting here in rebuke of progressive politics isn't substantial in content.

I don't think much of what takes place these days is substantial debate from most parties. But really, Atlanticmike suggested he and possibly you are taking the fight to progressives and frankly I don't see it. I doubt Atlanticmike has a coherent political view, really, and is mostly parroting the quips and kinds of ad hominem mud slinging one sees portrayed as political debate on network television and talk shows. But so are his opponents here. So it's not exactly his fault.

Anyway, I'm interested in what he chooses to put forward as his example. It would be valuable as an exercise.

Honor, I think the real problem we’re dealing with is broader than Atlantic Nobslurry’s inability to form a cohesive thought about anything, much less political identity. We’re old enough to remember what life was like before the Internet, and because we’re not completely retarded I think we can see what ‘algorithmic psychosis’ is doing to drive the sociopolitical divisions we’re seeing manifest today.

I’m not quite sure when Internet media algorithms started to determine topical feeds, rather than whatever news editors decided to publish, but the bottom line is if AM ‘likes’ and clicks on portapotty sex videos the algorithmic feed will give him more portapotty sex videos (or GQP talking points - same thing really).

Unfortunately for people with a broad range of interests, or a desire to stretch their palates as it were, these algorithms really do a good job at narrowing down the buffet to anger sandwiches and fear salads. So, as my oft-referred-to author John Naisbitt (RIP, he died this year) would say, “People have access to the world, but choose to exist in smaller and smaller bubbles of self-affirming delusion.” With the costs to publish approaching zero dollars for the average person, this has created a content explosion that humans just can’t process. It takes a LOT of self-discipline to read a variety of good opinions on any matter of importance, which most people don’t have.

When humans can wake up every day and read a new story on the shittiest new Democratic politician who eats children and schtups babies, or how GQP’ers enlist police departments to shoot black people and harass marijuana enthusiasts this brave new world pinholes people like AM with a view of reality framed with frequent anecdotal stories. And you're asking these people to explain why they hold these views when they don’t know themselves. They get caught in a psycho-dopamine addiction that serves to ping their brain’s outrage center, and then they get a good boy dopamine hit. Ask an addict with a drug-addled brain why they keep taking drugs, and quite often the first thing out of their mouth is, “I dunno.” It takes therapy, often a lot of therapy, to crack open their layers of stupidity and rote behavior, before they even understand that there was a person their making choices before they became dopamine seeking robots. And a lot of them are angry and defensive when you try to get them to root around and assess their own minds. They freak the F out.

Perhaps that’s why you’re seeing less and less people not only not interested in discussion, but a clear inability to do so because of their psychosis induced by these information peddlers.

- Doc

Haha you read my new thread, that's why you wrote this. You're so easy to figure out. The clowns in the Progressive cult are working overtime, what channel do you have your TV on, CNN or PMSNBC?