2020 Election Commentary

[jeff37923]

Tar by association? Pat, did you hit your head?


We don't have to tar by association. The Democrats have been happily supporting the rioting lowlifes for some time now. Hell, they're throttling BACK the riots because it's wreaking havoc on the Dems' poll numbers.

Did you hit your head? Because we're not talking about that. Spinachcat claimed that the money given to BLM when someone clicks on the big DONATE button on their website really goes to Joe Biden's campaign. I pointed out there's zero evidence for it. There's not even a plausible mechanism by which it can happen.

Spinachcat replied by bringing up campaign finance irregularities with AOC and Ilhan Omar's campaigns, which has nothing to do with ActBlue or BLM. Completely different organizations, probably completely different people, and none of the methods they used would transfer over because their organizational structures and legal requirements are completely different. So it was just a smokescreen, which provides no evidence that BLM is passing money to Biden via ActBlue, or even a method by which it might have been done. So yes, it's an attempt to tar by association. It's equivalent to saying water is blue, so that means anything blue is wet.

I see Pat is doing the same thing he did in the other thread...claiming there is no obvious link between things because, well, reasons?

BLM funnels money directly to the Democrat party. This is indisputable.

I'm sure some of their money ends up supporting them, via individual contributions or PACs. But that's not what we're talking about. Please don't carry over reflexive tribalism.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

[Abraxus]

So once again if a poster disagrees with another it's " Triablism" .


Is what it's come when having a discussion. Agree with the poster or one is "insert word" ist or a victim of "insert word" ism.
Mi can do too when a discussion is not going my way lol 😂.

[Pat]

So once again if a poster disagrees with another it's " Triablism" .

Nope. When people don't address any of the arguments I've made, and instead make false claims about what I believe, or make short responses that seem to have nothing to do with what I said, in today's climate the reasonable assumption is it's an example of tribalism. Tribalism is about taking sides, and characteristics include looking for superficial signs that someone is an enemy, then ascribing them a mass of characteristics and beliefs that have been assigned to that enemy, and then responding to those characteristics in a rote way, instead of addressing what was actually said. Your post, Brad's, and Jeff's all seem to be display those characteristics. There's nothing in those posts to address except the assumptions you're making, because there's no content. Ghostmaker by contrast appears to be reading things I never said into what I actually said, but seems to be trying to carry on a real discussion.

Note I'd prefer to address an actual argument, counterpoint, or something else that we can at least talk about.

[Brad]

Nope. When people don't address any of the arguments I've made, and instead make false claims about what I believe, or make short responses that seem to have nothing to do with what I said, in today's climate the reasonable assumption is it's an example of tribalism. Tribalism is about taking sides, and characteristics include looking for superficial signs that someone is an enemy, then ascribing them a mass of characteristics and beliefs that have been assigned to that enemy, and then responding to those characteristics in a rote way, instead of addressing what was actually said. Your post, Brad's, and Jeff's all seem to be display those characteristics. There's nothing in those posts to address except the assumptions you're making, because there's no content. Ghostmaker by contrast appears to be reading things I never said into what I actually said, but seems to be trying to carry on a real discussion.

Note I'd prefer to address an actual argument, counterpoint, or something else that we can at least talk about.

Nahh

[jeff37923]

So once again if a poster disagrees with another it's " Triablism" .

Nope. When people don't address any of the arguments I've made, and instead make false claims about what I believe, or make short responses that seem to have nothing to do with what I said, in today's climate the reasonable assumption is it's an example of tribalism. Tribalism is about taking sides, and characteristics include looking for superficial signs that someone is an enemy, then ascribing them a mass of characteristics and beliefs that have been assigned to that enemy, and then responding to those characteristics in a rote way, instead of addressing what was actually said. Your post, Brad's, and Jeff's all seem to be display those characteristics. There's nothing in those posts to address except the assumptions you're making, because there's no content. Ghostmaker by contrast appears to be reading things I never said into what I actually said, but seems to be trying to carry on a real discussion.

Note I'd prefer to address an actual argument, counterpoint, or something else that we can at least talk about.

So, you are admitting to engaging in tribalism?

[Abraxus]

I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt Pat except when an discussion does not go your way you toss out everyone is being Tribalistic".


To myself at least you don't really like push-back during a discussion. You want to hear what you want to hear and nothing else. With everyone at fault or in error.


It comes off wanting an echo chamber and not wanting to engage.

[Chris24601]

So, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg has died.


And you thought this election was going to be insane before.

[Ratman_tf]

So, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg has died.


And you thought this election was going to be insane before.

My favorite reaction so far.


https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status/1307107507131875330


I'm like, bitch, have you looked out a window lately?

[Pat]

I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt Pat except when an discussion does not go your way you toss out everyone is being Tribalistic".


To myself at least you don't really like push-back during a discussion. You want to hear what you want to hear and nothing else. With everyone at fault or in error.


It comes off wanting an echo chamber and not wanting to engage.

I've mentioned tribalism in exactly two discussions, and this time it only came up because Brad butted into the discussion with a dismissive and contentless reference to the earlier thread, so I asked him not to. So this pattern of behavior you're claiming I have is based on one instance, and second explicit request that we not do this again.

You should look in a mirror. The overreaction by you and others is a much stronger pattern.

And I tend to thrive when there's pushback, just look at the discussion I was having with Spinachcat before the rest of you jumped in. I was explaining how things work, and presenting arguments and evidence.

In contrast, none of you have done that. Your responses in both the previous thread and now in this one have been almost utterly devoid of content, amounting to "nah", telling me your (negative and false) impressions of me (like this post of yours), or putting words in my mouth.

[Pat]

So, you are admitting to engaging in tribalism?

I don't have a tribe.

[jeff37923]

So, you are admitting to engaging in tribalism?

I don't have a tribe.

So all of these contrarian posts are your attempt at announcing that you'd like to be adopted by a tribe?


Who among our clans shall take in this lonely one? To give it a home and hearth. To grant it an ideology worthy of its daring?

[Brad]

I've mentioned tribalism in exactly two discussions, and this time it only came up because Brad butted into the discussion with a dismissive and contentless reference to the earlier thread, so I asked him not to. So this pattern of behavior you're claiming I have is based on one instance, and second explicit request that we not do this again.

You are just completely unable to admit when you're wrong, even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Clutch those pearls!

[Pat]

So all of these contrarian posts are your attempt at announcing that you'd like to be adopted by a tribe?

Nope. It seems to be desperately important to you, though.

You are just completely unable to admit when you're wrong, even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Clutch those pearls!

Zero is overwhelming? Because you certainly haven't provided a single shred of evidence,.

[jeff37923]

So all of these contrarian posts are your attempt at announcing that you'd like to be adopted by a tribe?

Nope. It seems to be desperately important to you, though.

It is, because I am laughing at your antics.

[Spinachcat]

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

In my experience, that doesn't apply to Pat.

He (or she, it's Pat!) is always fun to joust with because while Pat staunchly (or some say stubbornly) holds to his positions (as I do too), Pat always seems TO ME to be willing to look at other perspectives and evidence.