I didn't attack you... so I can't possibly imagine what you could have imagined was malicious.

Furthermore, if you really feel something is actually malicious, you should report the post, or take it to a moderation thread. You shouldn't respond with personal attacks. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I very much appreciate you two putting so much effort into proving the point. Even so, please take it to a !!! thread now if you need to continue.

I'm through with this example. It was all a misunderstanding. End of that discussion.

I would however like some feedback on my comments regarding what I've called "strawmanning trolling". In general, of course.

It's not going to work quite like that in content threads. It can only be about discovery of, and discussion of, views other posters take ownership of.

Disputed opinions about what other posters believe or intend is for the !!! threads only.

Chez you seem to have put a lot of though into your Limey Basterdiousness.

That's not what I'm describing at all. Let me try again. This is a completely made up example.

A: Birds walk on two legs and aren't covered in fur.
B. So, what you're saying is Socrates was a bird.
A: ZOMG Strawman ZOMG !!!1! [conversation derailed]

This is the scenario I'm taking about.

Ok. the guiding idea here is that it's about discovery and discussion of what the poster means. Assuming it's not a rehash or the traditional forum noise then it will get some leeway to develop. If it doesn't get back on track or die out then everybody will be told to move on.

In your example, it's my opinion that B is absolutely fine and the response isn't. However my opinion is irrelevant as mod as I'm not going to judge who is at fault if it derails. Get it back on track for yourselves or everybody will be asked to move on.

Yeah, I feel like Shamey does that to me all the time. It's weird, and usually I assume it is a communication error between the two of us, but sometimes think he's trolling. I don't know how to avoid people misinterpreting your posts, other than to work on reading and writing skills. There's also the whole motivated reasoning bit, and cognitive dissonance, and plenty of other psychological reasons people have trouble communicating, especially anonymously on the interwebs. It could be impossible, but good moderation should help. Anybody know a good mod?

FFS

One thing I would suggest as a remedy for much confusion in communication in these forums. If there is a poster who is answering a lot of questions about a subject, say he's one of the only ones taking one side and many others are taking another.

-Don't expect that poster to answer all your questions, for many reasons, but mainly because the question may have been answered elsewhere.
-Do read the rest of the thread where he argues with other posters, because your questions may be answered or found to be otherwise unnecessary.
-Realize he may not remember exactly what he's said to you, because he's having a conversation with everyone at once and it's hard to keep track.
-So, in other words, in cases like that, in general it's important to follow the whole conversation. Lot's of different strings of thought can potentially cause a lot of confusion down the line, especially in heated arguments, especially when common knowledge falls off (not ordinary common knowledge, but the logic kind).

Just a thought, probably not gonna happen, lol.

Yeah, maybe if someone who was asked a question would just answer it instead of starting a multi-post back and forth about how they've already answered it and aren't going to repeat themselves and no I won't point you to it find it yourself maybe that would improve communication in some of the threads.

A thread on how to communicate could be useful but lets not do it here please.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to give you any ideas on how to moderate the ****ing forum or anything...

This post is amazing.

Actually I have a very serious idea. This is it...

Folks who wanna chat about institutional racism need to get off their lazy behinds and type out all those extra letters. Folks who wanna chat about secret heart racism need to get off their lazy behinds and type out all those extra letters. Folks who are too lazy to either one need to be sanctioned in the same manner as those who name call.

I feel this is odious name-calling. I wasn't in Seattle, and haven't been since 1999-12-1. There is no reason to reference me personally in this post at all.

FFS

I wasn't name calling. Quite crying and accusing me of smearing your organization... in a !!! thread no less. I already said I don't know who brought the pipes and bricks. It might not have had anything to do with your Wobblies, but it's super silly that you seem to think it might have been the Milo fans.

You implied he carried weapons in a protest. FFS indeed.

He implied Milo was inciting violence, when it was clearly the protesters who were the most violent!

Milo: Trump is Daddy! Feminism is cancer!
Protester: Stop inciting violence, fascist! *throws brick*

This. I'll repeat, I wasn't there, so it can't be true. Name calling flat out.

No, I directly stated he incites violence. Up at UW, from all reports, some of "the protesters" threw stuff, and one of "the protestors" shot somebody else in the gut. All those peeps were "the protestors" and those peeps that were violent were incited by this Milo dude.

This isn't some silly team sport, somebody got shot in the gut. WTF are you even thinking carrying on this way. You should be ashamed of yourself for attempting to trivialize this shiz to score interwebs #gotchas.

No dude, you should be embarrassed for making such strange and incoherent arguments, and ashamed of yourself for trying to shame me for simply correcting them. I'm not trying to score points, I'm trying to stop the spread of the insane thoughts you keep spouting.

The Milo supporter was not a "protester", this has been established, unless you think fans protest their idols.

Also, I was not name calling at all - even though it was in a !!! thread, so it silly that you would come here to whine about it even if it were.

Oh, and nice idea you have there. If protesters get violent they must have been "incited" by their target. I guess you can accuse anyone you disagree with of "inciting" violence that way.

"Hey, you think abortion should be legal? Baby murderer!" *punches face*

Damn, that guy shouldn't have incited such violence by having a divisive opinion.

My bad. I got confused as to which threads were /|\ threads. Never mind.

FWIW, I want to clear things up here anyway. I think I was clumsy in my wording. As I've pointed out in the thread, I meant it more like "with no-disrespect to you and your Wobblies", IOW, I meant it the opposite of the way you took it. But I can see now how it came off to you.

Having said that, I still think you're entirely off to claim the violent protests are evidence Milo "incites" violence. You must realize that's a charge that, if true, could actually get him arrested. So the definition that you've already admitted you're using (I could punch someone because I'm angry at you and claim you incited violence) is really pernicious.