I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

This underscores one of the main problems with Sebastian's self-appointed role as agent provocateur. Instead of introducing subversive ideas or facts that most people have ignored to the echo chamber, more often than not his posts contain nothing but completely unsupported and unsupportable statements of "fact" or citations to some dude he found on the internet, which in this case happens to be a dangerous pro-rape sociopath (whom he describes as "Indie Media"???). Because these things so undermine his credibility, even anything he happens to say that might actually be genuinely provocative is generally ignored, and his posts are dismissed as bullshit. He attributes this solely to the fact that he is posting in an echo chamber, rather than understanding that zero-credibility posting done solely to irritate and offend is basically the very definition of trolling. And when his trolling gets the predictable response, he acts like a wounded puppy and whimpers that everyone is ganging up on him.

Wow. Does this sound like anyone else who likes to watch cable news and tweet? Does anyone know what color hair Sebby has?

Talking of pro-rape sociopaths, has Sebby said anything about Bill O'Reilly lately?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

This underscores one of the main problems with Sebastian's self-appointed role as agent provocateur. Instead of introducing subversive ideas or facts that most people have ignored to the echo chamber, more often than not his posts contain nothing but completely unsupported and unsupportable statements of "fact" or citations to some dude he found on the internet, which in this case happens to be a dangerous pro-rape sociopath (whom he describes as "Indie Media"???). Because these things so undermine his credibility, even anything he happens to say that might actually be genuinely provocative is generally ignored, and his posts are dismissed as bullshit. He attributes this solely to the fact that he is posting in an echo chamber, rather than understanding that zero-credibility posting done solely to irritate and offend is basically the very definition of trolling. And when his trolling gets the predictable response, he acts like a wounded puppy and whimpers that everyone is ganging up on him.

I echo this response. I echo this response.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

This underscores one of the main problems with Sebastian's self-appointed role as agent provocateur. Instead of introducing subversive ideas or facts that most people have ignored to the echo chamber, more often than not his posts contain nothing but completely unsupported and unsupportable statements of "fact" or citations to some dude he found on the internet, which in this case happens to be a dangerous pro-rape sociopath (whom he describes as "Indie Media"???). Because these things so undermine his credibility, even anything he happens to say that might actually be genuinely provocative is generally ignored, and his posts are dismissed as bullshit. He attributes this solely to the fact that he is posting in an echo chamber, rather than understanding that zero-credibility posting done solely to irritate and offend is basically the very definition of trolling. And when his trolling gets the predictable response, he acts like a wounded puppy and whimpers that everyone is ganging up on him.

Shooting the Messenger, Ad Hominem... rack up a few more logical fallacies while you're at it.

The guy is possibly a sociopath (I haven't bothered to research because I don't care about that), but to quote Bill Maher (a quite valid media source hated here because he offends liberal orthodoxy), "Was this sociopath's scoop, that Rice unmasked names, inaccurate?"

No. It wasn't.

If ISIS's PR wing ran a scoop, and it was true, would it somehow be factually inaccurate or otherwise invalid because it came from ISIS? How about if it were later validated by WSJ, NYTimes, and even a reluctant WaPo? Is the reality of a thing objective in your world, or is it subjectively contingent on its source? Right... so your commentary regarding that right wing blogger being a sociopath is relevant to the story why? You're a clever sort. I'd assume clever enough to grasp that shooting the messenger is a Trump 101 move, and also about as close as one can come to saying, "I concede... I got nothin'."

Also, significantly, at the time I was posting, the only two sources covering the story were Bloomberg and that right wing blogger. Quite literally, that blogger was the only other cite I located doing a google news dive on the story after first reading it on Bloomberg. Now the media is covering it and you can find hundreds of sources. Choose one you find reputable. It will tell you, as did that blogger, that Rice unmasked names. Perhaps you can post something in the comments section below the news story... "But this can't be right! A bad person cited the fact! And that makes it untrue!" I recommend Yahoo News. The quality of your logic would fit perfectly there.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Adder

Also check out this fun thread from Chris Kluwe, who read back through Cernovic's old blog: https://twitter.com/ChrisWarcraft/st...40032875995140

Chris Kluwe is awesome.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

This underscores one of the main problems with Sebastian's self-appointed role as agent provocateur. Instead of introducing subversive ideas or facts that most people have ignored to the echo chamber, more often than not his posts contain nothing but completely unsupported and unsupportable statements of "fact" or citations to some dude he found on the internet, which in this case happens to be a dangerous pro-rape sociopath (whom he describes as "Indie Media"???). Because these things so undermine his credibility, even anything he happens to say that might actually be genuinely provocative is generally ignored, and his posts are dismissed as bullshit. He attributes this solely to the fact that he is posting in an echo chamber, rather than understanding that zero-credibility posting done solely to irritate and offend is basically the very definition of trolling. And when his trolling gets the predictable response, he acts like a wounded puppy and whimpers that everyone is ganging up on him.

Much like Trump, actually.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Wow. Does this sound like anyone else who likes to watch cable news and tweet? Does anyone know what color hair Sebby has?

Talking of pro-rape sociopaths, has Sebby said anything about Bill O'Reilly lately?

I've not prayed to the shrine to him in the basement lately. I can only hold so many vigils, and Cosby's occupying all my time.

But I am deeply distraught he's been bested by Maddow. I cannot bear to live in a world where an MSNBC host is #1.

(Do you actually watch Maddow? O'Reilly? Is this where I'm left to feel pity? Or wonder if you're in your late 60s?)

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Shooting the Messenger, Ad Hominem... rack up a few more logical fallacies while you're at it.

The guy is possibly a sociopath (I haven't bothered to research because I don't care about that), but to quote Bill Maher (a quite valid media source hated here because he offends liberal orthodoxy), "Was this sociopath's scoop, that Rice unmasked names, inaccurate?"

No. It wasn't.

If ISIS's PR wing ran a scoop, and it was true, would it somehow be factually inaccurate or otherwise invalid because it came from ISIS? How about if it were later validated by WSJ, NYTimes, and even a reluctant WaPo? Is the reality of a thing objective in your world, or is it subjectively contingent on its source? Right... so your commentary regarding that right wing blogger being a sociopath is relevant to the story why? You're a clever sort. I'd assume clever enough to grasp that shooting the messenger is a Trump 101 move, and also about as close as one can come to saying, "I concede... I got nothin'."

Also, significantly, at the time I was posting, the only two sources covering the story were Bloomberg and that right wing blogger. Quite literally, that blogger was the only other cite I located doing a google news dive on the story after first reading it on Bloomberg. Now the media is covering it and you can find hundreds of sources. Choose one you find reputable. It will tell you, as did that blogger, that Rice unmasked names. Perhaps you can post something in the comments section below the news story... "But this can't be right! A bad person cited the fact! And that makes it untrue!" I recommend Yahoo News. The quality of your logic would fit perfectly there.

If the messenger dresses up some information as coming from "independent media" and neglects to mention that that it actually comes from an alt-right misogynist troll, then yes, shoot that fucker. Because yes, I do consider the source of the information I am presented with when determining whether or not it is true, and I also assess whether the information (or the source) has been presented in a misleading way, which might make me suspicious about whether the information is more about ideology than fact. More important, my actual point had nothing to do with the merits of the Susan Rice story, but rather was about how the way you present information undermines your credibility and leads everyone here to dismiss pretty much everything you say, sometimes unfairly. I'm not even a teensy bit surprised that you failed entirely to grasp this (or more likely, simply ignored it in order to devastatingly attack a variety of points I did not make).

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No. It wasn't.

They had to get a sociopath to write it up as a scandal because nobody else would, because it's not a scandal. The NSA wanting to know whether the people she's handing the reins to in transition are talking to Russian operatives, during said transition, is not a scandal. It's her job.

How about if it were later validated by WSJ, NYTimes, and even a reluctant WaPo?

Which of those sources has presented it as though a crime may have been commited or failed to note that the requests were almost certainly entirely legal?

It will tell you, as did that blogger, that Rice unmasked names.

It will tell you that she requested that names be unmasked, but then who needs accuracy?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Shooting the Messenger, Ad Hominem... rack up a few more logical fallacies while you're at it.

The guy is possibly a sociopath (I haven't bothered to research because I don't care about that), but to quote Bill Maher (a quite valid media source hated here because he offends liberal orthodoxy), "Was this sociopath's scoop, that Rice unmasked names, inaccurate?"

No. It wasn't.

If ISIS's PR wing ran a scoop, and it was true, would it somehow be factually inaccurate or otherwise invalid because it came from ISIS? How about if it were later validated by WSJ, NYTimes, and even a reluctant WaPo? Is the reality of a thing objective in your world, or is it subjectively contingent on its source? Right... so your commentary regarding that right wing blogger being a sociopath is relevant to the story why? You're a clever sort. I'd assume clever enough to grasp that shooting the messenger is a Trump 101 move, and also about as close as one can come to saying, "I concede... I got nothin'."

Also, significantly, at the time I was posting, the only two sources covering the story were Bloomberg and that right wing blogger. Quite literally, that blogger was the only other cite I located doing a google news dive on the story after first reading it on Bloomberg. Now the media is covering it and you can find hundreds of sources. Choose one you find reputable. It will tell you, as did that blogger, that Rice unmasked names. Perhaps you can post something in the comments section below the news story... "But this can't be right! A bad person cited the fact! And that makes it untrue!" I recommend Yahoo News. The quality of your logic would fit perfectly there.

I know I'm going to regret this, but if Russian spies are being monitored and Trump's campaign or transition team pops up in those communications such that Rice feels the need to unmask them, why shouldn't she?

Is there evidence that she did so without following the law?

Is there evidence she leaked the information somehow (to no one of consequence since we never found out)?

Are you just parroting the Administration's talking points because it sounds bad?

Isn't it more likely, based on all of the contact between this Administration and Russia, that there is something there that the AG should have been looking into?

What is your point?

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Much like Trump, actually.

I'm actually enjoying this quite a lot.

I get to do this with Lefties here, then do the same thing with Righties in other conversations.

I admit being a troll. The world needs trolls right now, badly. We're the only people upsetting a pointless "Is not/Is too" that you all would have.

You're so binary, so certain - so predictable despite how enlightened you fancy yourselves - that one of you will assuredly respond to this by accusing me of being a Trump supporter. You can't even conceive of someone failing to adhere to a variant of the two narratives the masses are gullibly swallowing and using to divide themselves.

You're led - long-lined, hook-in-mouth, like a fish following a trawler. And the brilliance of it? The genius of the machine feeding you the story line you follow, giving you your views, and your enemies, is its simplicity. It's idiot simple PR:

Corral the Deplorables by playing to their envy and alienation. Make their loserdom a badge of honor.

Corral the Progressives by playing to their insecurity in needing to seem the most virtuous and forward thinking.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

If the messenger dresses up some information as coming from "independent media" and neglects to mention that that it actually comes from an alt-right misogynist troll, then yes, shoot that fucker. Because yes, I do consider the source of the information I am presented with when determining whether or not it is true, and I also assess whether the information (or the source) has been presented in a misleading way, which might make me suspicious about whether the information is more about ideology than fact. More important, my actual point had nothing to do with the merits of the Susan Rice story, but rather was about how the way you present information undermines your credibility and leads everyone here to dismiss pretty much everything you say, sometimes unfairly. I'm not even a teensy bit surprised that you failed entirely to grasp this (or more likely, simply ignored it in order to devastatingly attack a variety of points I did not make).

I worked with the only sources I had: Bloomberg and that guy. They were both accurate.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The world needs trolls right now, badly.

It's a thing that gets said a lot, but mostly with a huge amount of Maher-like wrongness, but this, right here, is what got Trump elected.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm actually enjoying this quite a lot.

I get to do this with Lefties here, then do the same thing with Righties in other conversations.

I admit being a troll. The world needs trolls right now, badly. We're the only people upsetting a pointless "Is not/Is too" that you all would have.

You're so binary, so certain - so predictable despite how enlightened you fancy yourselves - that one of you will assuredly respond to this by accusing me of being a Trump supporter. You can't even conceive of someone failing to adhere to a variant of the two narratives the masses are gullibly swallowing and using to divide themselves.

You're led - long-lined, hook-in-mouth, like a fish following a trawler. And the brilliance of it? The genius of the machine feeding you the story line you follow, giving you your views, and your enemies, is its simplicity. It's idiot simple PR:

Corral the Deplorables by playing to their envy and alienation. Make their loserdom a badge of honor.

Corral the Progressives by playing to their insecurity in needing to seem the most virtuous and forward thinking.

Congratulations. I'm glad it's working out so well for you.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

It's a thing that gets said a lot, but mostly with a huge amount of Maher-like wrongness, but this, right here, is what got Trump elected.

There you go again. Charging Sebby with responsibility for the guy he helped get elected.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm actually enjoying this quite a lot.

I get to do this with Lefties here, then do the same thing with Righties in other conversations.

I admit being a troll. The world needs trolls right now, badly. We're the only people upsetting a pointless "Is not/Is too" that you all would have.

You're so binary, so certain - so predictable despite how enlightened you fancy yourselves - that one of you will assuredly respond to this by accusing me of being a Trump supporter. You can't even conceive of someone failing to adhere to a variant of the two narratives the masses are gullibly swallowing and using to divide themselves.

You're led - long-lined, hook-in-mouth, like a fish following a trawler. And the brilliance of it? The genius of the machine feeding you the story line you follow, giving you your views, and your enemies, is its simplicity. It's idiot simple PR:

Corral the Deplorables by playing to their envy and alienation. Make their loserdom a badge of honor.

Corral the Progressives by playing to their insecurity in needing to seem the most virtuous and forward thinking.

None of the shit you think you're doing is happening. People on this board are talking about the actual actions the current administration is taking and the actual relationships the people in that administration seem to have. You're the only idiot who thinks anyone here sees things in a binary way. And that makes you look ridiculous because you think you're poking people by saying stupid shit when everyone is really only interested in talking about actual substance.

TM