And he was wrong about a) and b), so here we are (b is a bit hyperbolic, and there was nothing clever about it, but accurate enough.)

I suck at posting (ya, ya) so not sure how to post that from you're quotes.
You quoted Clovis saying
To which you replied "No there isn't".
I would disagree with that, but w/e. You go on to quote Fly say:

And you added: "This. Wtf dude".

Seriously, you literally just quoted him saying she is a racist.

DVaut has ignored ChrisV points in regards to clickbaiting and the use of 14 words and just labeled his post as 'bad'.

You guys didn't prove anyone wrong. You yelled at some until they went away and ignored any argument that counters your pov. This isn't an argument between Trump supporters and Human Right voulenteers. This is a sub-forum where 90% of the people are borderline identical (and I mean that in a good way, sorta). So yeah, some people don't think the '14 words' clickbate was a coded message. That's the entire argument here.

But I was right about this
Right?

That's not that surprising or funny though. Fly is a lot closer to me than the other 98 too. Just because Clovis and I agree on lots of things, I still see fit to criticize him for being overly sensitive. He came on the internet and white-knighted for Sarah ****ing Palin. Why does he get kid gloves for that? Because we agree on universal health care? No. I don't adhere to that notion.

Clovis was inexplicably starting with the assumption that Palin wasn't a racist, err sorry, wasn't a full blown white supremacist that rocks KKK gear. That don't make no sense. She's obviously on the side of racists, and by extension is obviously one herself.

I don't get this clever jab. My sentence seems super clear to me. Some people find him entertaining, other fear to get on his bad side.

What do you think is factually wrong about this sentence that makes you continue with your pun for 3 posts?

Because I enjoy insulting you.

This you just fabricated to make yourself feel better about (presumably previously) being righteously mashed.

I posted an almost 500 word response. One sentence called his post bad. He has a bunch of points he can respond to:

- 14 words is an awfully strange number to seize on even if their headlines use the same style often, and it comports with a white supremacist slogan, and both YoungCon and Palin are in the business of selling propaganda to the crowd of people who find that slogan appealing, and the subject of the article was about a news event in which the President made a speech likely also meant to appeal to the same type of white supremacists or at least racially anxious whites.
- people who defend clearly racist rhetoric often try to quiet critics via the tactic of sowing doubt in the critic -- basically, that the racist person acted unknowingly and without intent. That apologetic 'works' because it is hard to conclusively disprove and flatters the critic, trying to get the critic to assume they know so much and the racist person can't possibly be aware of the context. Which is why it's popular. It works in three ways: let's you assume the racist type is really dumb, which isn't a huge leap for the critic to want to believe anyway. It restores some element of shared consensus -- that coded racism isn't a commercially appealing tactic to ply clicks with, and people are simply dumb, not unscrupulously selling hate. And it lets the critic assume they exceptionally culturally hip and aware. We should be very wary about that trap since it allows tons of racist **** to filter through without much comment.
- his analogy to PizzaGate didn't fit since the amount of things we need to believe here aren't nearly that preposterous

He's got three substantive points he can respond to. I don't think I really ignored a substantive thing ChrisV said.

My comment on Popper was pretty elliptical. To be more explicit, if a theory explains everything, including counter-examples, you can be pretty sure it's flawed, or even outright BS. If you just need another epicycle in the ptolemaic system, or a little shift in the role of intellectuals in association with the means of production, or this or that latent/unconscious cause to explain unexpected phenomena, then you're trending toward self-reinforcing bs.

That, or some people fear to get on his bad side and I think he's a terrible poster.

We can go for hours and you'll end up thinking you won and your superiority was proven without a doubt. The problem is that neither of us are even remotely entertaining.

Oroku, didn't you make a worthwhile post once? I don't remember.

So it's basically a highbrow version of the classic ikestoysean complaint about liberal circlejerks.

He gave multiple examples of uses of numbers in articles where the number isn't very relevant. He gave examples of uses of the number in the meta when it doesn't even appear in the text. He gave multiple examples of using "14 words" in other sites.

He also shown that it would be completely improbable that Palin could have known that would be the text shown on her twitter page.

This is an amazing case where Chris is 100% right, to a point where there's close to no chance that you're correct and yet you managed to call his post straight up 'bad'.

This isn't some super-cool-meta sociological analysis like the one you provided for the 'Fly-haters'. This is just a factual case where you are wrong, or most very likely to be wrong. And it's not like you guys argued that there's a chance you might be right. It was a 'anyone who think otherwise is a <explicit whatever>'.

FWIW, Flynn wrote that ChrisV is right and I assume he meant about his analysis of the twitter page. He is also right that we shouldn't care about it and focus on Trump, I fully agree with that (before I'm labeled as a Palin sympathiser. Tho it might be too late)

But this is just grist to the mill of my 'giant pussies' theory.

Holy **** at the feelings genocide happening in here.

and yet you apply it to me who clearly doesn't give a **** about getting on flies bad side. It's the fact some don't care about his <cough> 'extapolations' that really bothers the flybies - we are supposed to be upset, that's the whole point but in reality it's a great method that has one small flaw.

I laid out the hypothesis to falsify: The falsification of my theory here would be if the chez and Clovis types of the forum really and consistently object to "bullying" and "unjustified personal insults."

The answer with chez is crystal clear that he is bothered only by offenses that go one way. I ain't gonna re-litigate it because talking about chez is as boring as talking about Fly but he was BruceZ's defender. Ain't no ****ing plausible defense of chez here.

Maybe Clovis is a different story. I don't follow him that closely.

Obviously you have to filter in your own personal experience. If the tone and tenor of Fly's personal insults are really worse than you see anywhere else. If the responses you see to Fly are really different from what you witness here on 2p2 and elsewhere.

I'm not going to retroactively go back and catalogue every insult on the forum but if you'd like, I could be the guy going forward that obnoxiously quotes personal insults, bullying behavior, brazenly offensive posts and pages Fly's enemies to the thread and wonder aloud where their consistently applied outrage is. It sounds kind of miserable for everyone and at some point I think the act would become pretty tired and considered a distraction. I suspect you and I would agree there's no need to do such things, and actually the entire premise of the forum is a bit of high-brow trolling where people try to talk down to and insult each other. Right?

If so, what are the characteristics of the people who are fraught with distress over Fly but more or less happily participate in all of the other insult-trading? As I said, I think they are all probably white and very much like chez, highly defensive of BruceZ's ability to lambast Mexican immigrants and compare them to insects but then tut tuts and wags their tone-policing finger at Fly. I know not what to make of that other than white privilege. But as I said, perhaps the impulse comes from elsewhere. I don't really debate the fact that the people consistently waging war on Fly are thin-skinned babies, regardless of their motivations: that they obviously and transparently are.

They're both the same! Two equal conspiracies made up to besmirch reasonably people.

This thread has spiraled out of control and topic.

OK? I can't tell if it's broken English or confusion but he didn't give "multiple examples of using 14 words in other sites." And the fact 14 words appears in the metadata isn't proof it wasn't intentionally put there to grist their hits among racists. In fact that's exactly the kind of **** you'd add to your meta data to make sure you're getting hits from deplorable searches and link bots.

So like I said, I can't tell if you're technically illiterate, there's some ESL language here or what, but I'm confident even Chris would show back up and admit a bunch of the stuff you're pointing to is hardly conclusive and relies on a bunch of assumptions.

He said it. How do you "show" it? I don't find it improbable at all. It rests on the fact Palin is a moron and doesn't really look or pay attention or care, doesn't know the context, just clicks around on the internet in random ways. It's simply just reiterating the Feral Child Fallacy. Palin doesn't know 14 Words, doesn't know what she's doing, can't be responsible. All of it gets into Palin's state of mind. Even if it was accident, she can always pull it down. It's really not a questionable of probability at all. It's just a question of how much credit you give to Palin for acting with intent. I totally understand people who conclude "none" or that Palin just has an intern, or a content sharing contract, or an algorithm that just acts largely without any human touch from her. But while I understand the conclusion, I believe she's still partly or wholly responsible for a lot of that anyway, even if she was out hunting bears yesterday and is just catching wind of it. So I sort of don't care if she didn't personally share the link and know the totality of the meaning. She can come up to speed and act accordingly.

I even said in my like my second or third post on this that machine-learning robots and algorithms slamming racist slogans into headlines and metadata and the internet's bot-driven perpetual motion machine disseminating racism far and wide *might* be the most interest thing about this story.

You are simply wrong dvaut but it is what you have to believe to maintain your position I suppose.

You have to believe some very strange things if you think Pv7.0 was ever one-sided about personal attacks but then if you believe people who think everything's about the Bruce fiasco then there's not really anywhere sensible for you to go.

Oh come on, this is fun. Trump will do something ******ed in the next half hour anyway and we'll get back on track.

Oh well, you win.

Like there was ever any doubt.