Is the World Safe for Conversation Anymore?
JohnnyBlaze said:
You can try, but you might want to consider that being vigilant in "arguing against" lies, misinformation, conspiracy theories, etc is what aids such a person in continuing to spread them.
Tell that to Hillary, Pelosi, and the Bernie Bros. They still think Trump stole the election in 2016. Russia, Russia, Russia!
BTW, some Democrats had their elections stolen this year, too. Wish I had memorized their names and locations.
The topic started off with a rather vague notion that "the Left" was physically threatening people like her from speaking their minds.
Drones strikes, anyone? Would you like to be called a terrorist because of an opinion? That’s exactly what is happening.
Meanwhile, a hundred plus Trump supporters
But no lefties... not. Did any non-Trump supporters die? Did any Trumpers fire a weapon? No.
are being arrested for comitting acts of violence caught on multiple cameras, attempting to derail legal election proceedings,
Trumpers are very mad that the proceedings were interrupted. Did you miss that? They hate the Storming. Even Trump said “my supporters wouldn’t do that” (paraphrase)
and threatening to physically harm elected officials - as Donald Trump is standing trial for encouraging ( their ) violent insurrection.
You say. I saw cells of bad actors doing crap.
Don’t mix violence into free speech in a mostly peaceful capital protest. Rioting is the language of the unheard. It really was mostly peaceful.
Now, given the evidence at hand, it should be fairly obvious that no argument is necessary. Clearly, the opposite is occuring in the United Stated. The facts or the Truth does not need to be defended.
So you’re here.... 🧐🤔🧐🤔🧐
Anonymous
JohnnyBlaze said:
Pointing out something helpful to a relative newb to this forum.
I’m sure he really needs your help. I mean, he’s got no idea how to have a winning conversation without you!
And you were on this thread before then, wasting time as you saw fit.
You have no mirrors, or no reflection? Which is it?
Why do you think people interact online?
Pointing out something helpful to a relative newb to this forum.
I’m sure he really needs your help. I mean, he’s got no idea how to have a winning conversation without you!
And you were on this thread before then, wasting time as you saw fit.
You have no mirrors, or no reflection? Which is it?
Why do you think people interact online?
EdibleWords said:
If you are talking about Richards Spencer and Ibram Kendi they both voted for Biden, and they both are racists by their own admissions.
Actions vs shallow lip service.
Again I beg your pardon, not one straight answer.
Diversion, distraction, sidestepping deflection are not what anyone would call debate. Again these immideiate aforementioned are what's apparent of and in your reply dear peer. Not directed at you but your act.
Please explain to me in clear words how is communism masquerading as liberalism in the US. Which specific policy of the current administration or former administration makes you believe that? Or which libertarian organisation is?
JohnnyBlaze said:
You can try, but you might want to consider that being vigilant in "arguing against" lies, misinformation, conspiracy theories, etc is what aids such a person in continuing to spread them.
The topic started off with a rather vague notion that "the Left" was physically threatening people like her from speaking their minds.
Meanwhile, a hundred plus Trump supporters are being arrested for comitting acts of violence caught on multiple cameras, attempting to derail legal election proceedings, and threatening to physically harm elected officials - as Donald Trump is standing trial for encouraging ( their ) violent insurrection.
Now, given the evidence at hand, it should be fairly obvious that no argument is necessary. Clearly, the opposite is occuring in the United Stated. The facts or the Truth does not need to be defended.
If you understand the phenomena that is QAnon, then you are aware that it is a means of empowering people into defending the United States from vaguely stated evils within it.
Likewise, you are being empowered - to prove this and that isn't true because of the notion that if you don't, the misinformation will spread. But what you don't realize is that is how the misinformation spreads. By debunking False Claim A, you gave the person the opportunity to present False Claims B, C, & D that bring you back to Square One.
All the while reinforcing the initial storyline by said person that her voice is being suppressed because she has an "alternate version of what's happening" and thus "another side that is being discouraged from being vocalized".
So, with this in mind, let Edible have her say. Let Runaway have his say. Let them bump the numerous threads they have trying to incite an argument with vague notions involving "The Left" this and "Democrats" that and "Libs" whatever. Let them start a hundred more threads than the dozen or so they already have and abandoned because no one chomped on the bait.
Don't give oxygen to the fires.
Wait for something else to come along that is actually worth discussing and can be discussed.
I certainly understand where you are coming from, in this particular case I don’t think I have made much difference to the amount of conspiracy theory nonsense that EdibleWords has posted.
I’m actually fascinated by the psychology of conspiracy theorists. The lack of genuine self reflection, the lack of objectivity, confirmation bias, false surety, displays of escalating hysteria, and the tribalism of the phenomenon. It’s all there. Simply fascinating.
You can try, but you might want to consider that being vigilant in "arguing against" lies, misinformation, conspiracy theories, etc is what aids such a person in continuing to spread them.
The topic started off with a rather vague notion that "the Left" was physically threatening people like her from speaking their minds.
Meanwhile, a hundred plus Trump supporters are being arrested for comitting acts of violence caught on multiple cameras, attempting to derail legal election proceedings, and threatening to physically harm elected officials - as Donald Trump is standing trial for encouraging ( their ) violent insurrection.
Now, given the evidence at hand, it should be fairly obvious that no argument is necessary. Clearly, the opposite is occuring in the United Stated. The facts or the Truth does not need to be defended.
If you understand the phenomena that is QAnon, then you are aware that it is a means of empowering people into defending the United States from vaguely stated evils within it.
Likewise, you are being empowered - to prove this and that isn't true because of the notion that if you don't, the misinformation will spread. But what you don't realize is that is how the misinformation spreads. By debunking False Claim A, you gave the person the opportunity to present False Claims B, C, & D that bring you back to Square One.
All the while reinforcing the initial storyline by said person that her voice is being suppressed because she has an "alternate version of what's happening" and thus "another side that is being discouraged from being vocalized".
So, with this in mind, let Edible have her say. Let Runaway have his say. Let them bump the numerous threads they have trying to incite an argument with vague notions involving "The Left" this and "Democrats" that and "Libs" whatever. Let them start a hundred more threads than the dozen or so they already have and abandoned because no one chomped on the bait.
Don't give oxygen to the fires.
Wait for something else to come along that is actually worth discussing and can be discussed.
I certainly understand where you are coming from, in this particular case I don’t think I have made much difference to the amount of conspiracy theory nonsense that EdibleWords has posted.
I’m actually fascinated by the psychology of conspiracy theorists. The lack of genuine self reflection, the lack of objectivity, confirmation bias, false surety, displays of escalating hysteria, and the tribalism of the phenomenon. It’s all there. Simply fascinating.
cold_fusion said:
Again I beg your pardon, not one straight answer.
I did answer you straight. You ask how: through deception.
Diversion, distraction, sidestepping deflection are not what anyone would call debate.
Is this a debate or a discussion? I thought it was a conversation. You are defining it as a debate.
Please explain to me in clear words how is communism masquerading as liberalism in the US. Which specific policy of the current administration or former administration makes you believe that? Or which libertarian organisation is?
Libertarians have nothing to do with this. “Liberal” Democrats is what the left likes to call itself in America. They are really more illiberal than anything. Just look at who controls their narrative.
Hollywood has been taken over. Communist China owns big chunks of our infrastructure. Disney is in the Communist pocket. Just look it up. If I do it for you, our lunch will be late.
Again I beg your pardon, not one straight answer.
I did answer you straight. You ask how: through deception.
Diversion, distraction, sidestepping deflection are not what anyone would call debate.
Is this a debate or a discussion? I thought it was a conversation. You are defining it as a debate.
Please explain to me in clear words how is communism masquerading as liberalism in the US. Which specific policy of the current administration or former administration makes you believe that? Or which libertarian organisation is?
Libertarians have nothing to do with this. “Liberal” Democrats is what the left likes to call itself in America. They are really more illiberal than anything. Just look at who controls their narrative.
Hollywood has been taken over. Communist China owns big chunks of our infrastructure. Disney is in the Communist pocket. Just look it up. If I do it for you, our lunch will be late.
Noble_Incubus said:
I certainly understand where you are coming from, in this particular case I don’t think I have made much difference to the amount of conspiracy theory nonsense that EdibleWords has posted.
I’m actually fascinated by the psychology of conspiracy theorists. The lack of genuine self reflection, the lack of objectivity, confirmation bias, false surety, displays of escalating hysteria, and the tribalism of the phenomenon. It’s all there. Simply fascinating.
This post is a classic case of projection. Look in the mirror. You sound terrified of any other opinions. Confirmation bias galor.
Your here for your 2 minutes of 1984 style hate, as evidenced by your portrayal of my words.
I certainly understand where you are coming from, in this particular case I don’t think I have made much difference to the amount of conspiracy theory nonsense that EdibleWords has posted.
I’m actually fascinated by the psychology of conspiracy theorists. The lack of genuine self reflection, the lack of objectivity, confirmation bias, false surety, displays of escalating hysteria, and the tribalism of the phenomenon. It’s all there. Simply fascinating.
This post is a classic case of projection. Look in the mirror. You sound terrified of any other opinions. Confirmation bias galor.
Your here for your 2 minutes of 1984 style hate, as evidenced by your portrayal of my words.
Noble_Incubus said:
I’m actually fascinated by the psychology of conspiracy theorists. The lack of genuine self reflection, the lack of objectivity, confirmation bias, false surety, displays of escalating hysteria, and the tribalism of the phenomenon. It’s all there. Simply fascinating.
you know what same, but i don't think edible is a true conspiracy theorist. i would explain further but it would just be misconstrued as a personal attack
I’m actually fascinated by the psychology of conspiracy theorists. The lack of genuine self reflection, the lack of objectivity, confirmation bias, false surety, displays of escalating hysteria, and the tribalism of the phenomenon. It’s all there. Simply fascinating.
you know what same, but i don't think edible is a true conspiracy theorist. i would explain further but it would just be misconstrued as a personal attack
anna_grin said:
you know what same, but i don't think edible is a true conspiracy theorist. i would explain further but it would just be misconstrued as a personal attack
Nice to see you around! I’m just unconventional. I believe all side deserve a voice, within reason.
I had to chuckle at the idea of me being a tribal thinker. I’m more of a lone wolf thinker.
you know what same, but i don't think edible is a true conspiracy theorist. i would explain further but it would just be misconstrued as a personal attack
Nice to see you around! I’m just unconventional. I believe all side deserve a voice, within reason.
I had to chuckle at the idea of me being a tribal thinker. I’m more of a lone wolf thinker.
Interesting. EdibleWords has provided us with such a variety of deceptive tactics, let's see if we can unpack them all.
EdibleWords said:
Well saying everybody who disagrees with you is a liar is a bad start to a conversation.
This statement is a real slippery one. It is ambiguous but is intended as an accusation towards me and implies something which is totally ridiculous. This is easily refuted by looking at my post history, it is also a lie through exaggeration.
EdibleWords said:
God is real. The sooner you admit it and move on, the better. The evidence is overwhelming. Do your own math.
This is an example of re-framing, bringing in something new, that was never part of the central discussion and claiming this was the real agenda. A classic deceptive tactic.
EdibleWords said:
This thread is not about what’s fact regarding elections, it’s about our right to discuss our beliefs publicly. There’s a thread for discussing stolen elections, and this ain’t it.
Again, this is an attempt at re-framing, followed by deflection intended to stop me from commenting further.
EdibleWords said:
You can prove that, how? I watched votes get taken away in real time. I saw the way votes were added, too. And on and on. I didn’t miss much.
Notice that I’m not debating w/you about it. Why? Because I believe the evidence is overwhelming and in broad daylight. And time will clarify even more.
This is a more subtle kind of deception based on lopsided standards for evidence.
The only first hand evidence we have of a stolen election is video of people making allegations. That isn't real evidence.
The contrary evidence is overwhelming: dozens of court cases (where there is an actual burden of proof) have refuted the claim that the election was stolen. This is a much higher standard but this somehow this doesn't count as proof to the conspiracy theorist. Ridiculous.
This thread is about whether we can have safe conversations anymore and yes we can. Nobody is being censored here. However, if we want to have fruitful discussions with people we disagree with then we need to accept conspiracy theories for what they really are: lies.
EdibleWords said:
Well saying everybody who disagrees with you is a liar is a bad start to a conversation.
This statement is a real slippery one. It is ambiguous but is intended as an accusation towards me and implies something which is totally ridiculous. This is easily refuted by looking at my post history, it is also a lie through exaggeration.
EdibleWords said:
God is real. The sooner you admit it and move on, the better. The evidence is overwhelming. Do your own math.
This is an example of re-framing, bringing in something new, that was never part of the central discussion and claiming this was the real agenda. A classic deceptive tactic.
EdibleWords said:
This thread is not about what’s fact regarding elections, it’s about our right to discuss our beliefs publicly. There’s a thread for discussing stolen elections, and this ain’t it.
Again, this is an attempt at re-framing, followed by deflection intended to stop me from commenting further.
EdibleWords said:
You can prove that, how? I watched votes get taken away in real time. I saw the way votes were added, too. And on and on. I didn’t miss much.
Notice that I’m not debating w/you about it. Why? Because I believe the evidence is overwhelming and in broad daylight. And time will clarify even more.
This is a more subtle kind of deception based on lopsided standards for evidence.
The only first hand evidence we have of a stolen election is video of people making allegations. That isn't real evidence.
The contrary evidence is overwhelming: dozens of court cases (where there is an actual burden of proof) have refuted the claim that the election was stolen. This is a much higher standard but this somehow this doesn't count as proof to the conspiracy theorist. Ridiculous.
This thread is about whether we can have safe conversations anymore and yes we can. Nobody is being censored here. However, if we want to have fruitful discussions with people we disagree with then we need to accept conspiracy theories for what they really are: lies.
Noble_Incubus said:Interesting. EdibleWords has provided us with such a variety of deceptive tactics, let's see if we can unpack them all.
This is a more subtle kind of deception based on lopsided standards for evidence.
The only first hand evidence we have of a stolen election is video of people making allegations. That isn't real evidence.
The contrary evidence is overwhelming: dozens of court cases (where there is an actual burden of proof) have refuted the claim that the election was stolen. This is a much higher standard but this somehow this doesn't count as proof to the conspiracy theorist. Ridiculous.
This thread is about whether we can have safe conversations anymore and yes we can. Nobody is being censored here. However, if we want to have fruitful discussions with people we disagree with then we need to accept conspiracy theories for what they really are: lies.
1. You are painting my intentions instead of asking me for clarification. My ambiguity is not an invitation to do that. An unbiased reader would understand my point was not about your overall posts, but about how I believe a person like yourself should address others in general. You don’t do that to all others equally, proving you should know better. The bias is all yours.
2. I made the framework from the start. Keeping you on topic is work.
3. I see overwhelming evidence, and you are a low information observer, obviously pruning out opportunities to see what I’ve seen. My perspective. You have yours.
This is a more subtle kind of deception based on lopsided standards for evidence.
The only first hand evidence we have of a stolen election is video of people making allegations. That isn't real evidence.
The contrary evidence is overwhelming: dozens of court cases (where there is an actual burden of proof) have refuted the claim that the election was stolen. This is a much higher standard but this somehow this doesn't count as proof to the conspiracy theorist. Ridiculous.
This thread is about whether we can have safe conversations anymore and yes we can. Nobody is being censored here. However, if we want to have fruitful discussions with people we disagree with then we need to accept conspiracy theories for what they really are: lies.
1. You are painting my intentions instead of asking me for clarification. My ambiguity is not an invitation to do that. An unbiased reader would understand my point was not about your overall posts, but about how I believe a person like yourself should address others in general. You don’t do that to all others equally, proving you should know better. The bias is all yours.
2. I made the framework from the start. Keeping you on topic is work.
3. I see overwhelming evidence, and you are a low information observer, obviously pruning out opportunities to see what I’ve seen. My perspective. You have yours.
