Yea he was not attacked by the mob for being lefty, he was attacked for being conspiracy, including by me A LOT.

This is important because when we had that discussion you painted it as me, you and shuffle against the right wingers.

Because that speaks to the meta of ingroups you are trying to argue, ingroup here v ingroup in one thread in BFI.

My mistake when we originally talking about this was not mentioning how much me and shuffle argued.

You can quote me saying Shuffle was not attacked by the mob, I can quote myself attacking shuffle.

oh, wait. i had to 'see' others posting CT's or its laughable? Is that how it works,

You notice I did not say he was the only one, as I recognize I may not have noticed others posting CT's.

I am going to let the Shuffle stuff go as nothing you are describing is accurate to the way things played out in my view and I am sure you feel the same, and it is unimportant to this discussion regardless.

I will just leave it at me saying your summary above is completely off base with actual discussion.

Its absolutely **** all to with that, dont necro that discussion.

That is absolutely 10000000000000% irrelevant.

Which should be obvious.

Im talking specifically about what you have argued in the last few pages ITT with rocco.

You are setting your self up as an arbiter of "obviously wrong opinions" or "ridiculous opinions" etc.

Then you suggest due to ingrouping posters wont criticise opinions that are obviously ridiculous according to QP.

That is your whole argument in this thread, not any other thread, indeed this page.

No, what i am doing is pointing out how here (and the BFI) you guys have absolutely predictable and template replies (or silence to issues).

Whether i think you guys or those in the BFI are on the wrong or right side, is not relevant. I am allowed my view as are you guys.

I am pointing out how predictable and silo'd your responses are.

So for instance when that absolutely nonsense retweet of a joke was posted I knew I would get NO ONE here, outside maybe an Inso0 (or RFlush on occasion) to respond in any way that was critical of the Cancel Culture elements of that story.

I knew instead people would race in to defend the actions (did not know you specifically but you did) and to justify or make the case the re Tweeter was wrong, and to laugh and hand wave any consequences as meaningless.


Those replies are rote here. Template. It begins from a base position of 'Cancel Culture does not exist...' and flows from there.

For instance I doubt that anyone here (a single person) truly believes the retweet of that joke should have any corporate consequences or that they think the joke has any real 'bad' or 'negative' meaning and that it was not a complete sily over reaction with real consequences (Cancel Culture in action) but I would BET not one person in the usual group would acknowledge that. They prefer silence and we all know why. Right Rococo?

Some here may even try and make arguments now that the retweet joke was in fact bad just so they can defend their past positions. (I was not going to write that last bit just to see if anyone did but then I cannot say after I was predicting it, if i don't predict it)

Don’t we have a separate BFI Thread?

I still have no clue what you’re saying and you didn’t answer the question so you’ve done nothing to convince me that what you’re saying corresponds to anything in reality.

Ask yourself, is this pertinent to the discussion at hand?

then make the difficult decision to delete tl;dr wall of text.

What am I supposed to be confirming? I don't even know what retweet you are talking about or who got mad about the retweet.

Ever notice that the flaming leftists that post in this thread are maniacs and the moderates that are cowed to not become involved are morons?

Ya but that is deliberate.

you speak often of 'the right' and 'Trumpists' and the decline in that area generally. We can judge and infer and speak to actions of 'the right' both implicit and complicit not just from what individual actors say and do but what they do not. What they tolerate and vote for.

One of the Trumpists defense as they vote for him time and again and empower is to proclaim they personally do actually support many of those most heinous policies and actions. One by one most of them would, if they could, demand you post specific things they say or support to PROVE they actually do support those terrible things.

And I have seen you make arguments that address that as not being the shield.

We get to speak to the collective 'you' empowering Trump and his worse actions and trying to break it down to individual names and actions is a co-opt way to try and throw shade on those arguments. Sorry but if you do things to keep Hitler in power, such as making arguments why his victims actually were bad, or even if you just keep silent when others are making those arguments and you only find your voice when others are criticizing Hitler, you are responsible as well for his actions, even the ones you might not really support.


What we have happening now on the Dem side of the aisle is that the Far Left is making certain things absolutely toxic to discuss or defend. They have decided harmless jokes like the reTweet are no longer acceptable in society and the cost will be extremely high not just for anyone who transgresses (smears, lies, work and society ostracization, etc) but also for anyone who tries to defend that person or in any way suggest they have gone too far.

It is the moderates (not the right or far right) who need to be the ones to call them out en masse, so it is the far left that looks extreme and ridiculous and it puts a quell on their more extreme pushes. But moderates have been cowed into silence and avoidance.

You have really two factions within the moderates. The ones who will just pretend they do not see the abuses of the far left and thus never comment and they will hide behind statements suggesting they don't see or hear everything. And you have moderates who have adopted a position or 'clean up' or 'throwing shade' which often comes from a difficulty in not being willing or able to confront the bully, as you see him beating kids up, and so you find reasons why the kids deserved it. 'They should have known better...' etc.

We see both in this forum. I can post example after example of egregious abuses like the reTweet story and you will predictable actors jump instantly in to defense mode which includes trying to justify why the 'joke was indeed so horrible the actors got what they deserve' and also 'to hand wave away and laugh at any cost' but also silence from the majority of centrists here. It takes no effort to put the list of names who fall into each camp. They are nothing, if not ultimately predictable.

I could do the same in the BFI thread when it came to the most extreme far right comments. The posters who would say nothing. The posters who would suddenly find their voice if they thought something you said to defend Obama on a single issue was wrong, while they ignored the 10 ones about Trump which were wrong.

In this day of forum polarization this phenomena is no longer unknown and the studies show those in the echo bubbles are not the ones who can see or will ever recognize it.

I am not going to hand hold you. You have no issue getting thru a thread where uke and Trolly and others can be slinging all sorts of lies and mud and ignoring all that to pick out a singular post and point of mine to isolate and to seek to get clarity to see if you can get me to admit some perceived wrong.

is it possibility you just have no curiosity to take 3 seconds to look when the accusations are against others but you do when they are against me? Sure. Does that help in my argument against 'camps' and how they behave? No.

Or is it possible it is just some grand coincidence where you eyes fall? Sure. Do i accept that time and time and time again? No. It strains credulity.

@ Rococo and @e_d, you need look no further than the Challenges surrounding Obesity discussion to understand the divide.

That thread posted in the BFI would almost certainly gain the type of acknowledgement that posting one about the Challenges of Anorexia or the Challenges facing Trans People would get here.

Instead, what you see here is a very predictable cadre of posters who will go out of their way to defend or ignore even posts where someone like Tess Holiday is celebrated as brave. All sorts of shade thrown at the topic as something that should not be discussed or criticized. If that was a Challenges of Anorexia by ganstaman, thread and i was the one defending the anorexic as brave or throwing shade, suddenly the moderate middle here would all find their voice.

that issue is one, if you in the moderate middle you know to just shut up about, if you are not one who is willing to throw shade or trumpet how brave it is. One of dozens.

How ****ing weird is it that I haven’t posted ITT and yet Cuepee is just spamming mention after mention about me. Living rent free in his mind is bizarre.

But when asked who I’m talking about I’ll gladly provide examples: Trump, Pence, Desantis, Graham, Guiliani etc. You make strong negative claims about posters here and when asked to provide examples you intentionally don’t. I understand it’s much easier to defeat the fictional versions of posters you’ve created in your head, but that’s a tactic used when reality isn’t kind to your views.

I have picked out a few though.

Lets start with this:

So if I state the opinion that I find the reaction of the Washington Post a lefty corporate media entity that is public facing censuring employee for said joke completely standard and predictable, I must be being insincere.

As I stated above this is clearly you trying to set your opinion as transcendental to carlin and the arbiter of "true" opinions.

Which you do again here:

Why should it offend no one, because QP says so? The official trans carlin arbiter of what should and what should not offend.
Again why is it silly and harmless? QP the above carlin arbiter says so.

When in fact the whole point of carlin is to point why someone might find something offensive and someone else might not.

However this is not enough for you, you will now attempt further control and definition of my views by placing them in a meta where I am somehow too afraid or cowed to express or whatever BS, to actually express my sincere (because you know what people actual true opinions must be) pov on said joke because of extreme lefties.

Nope.

I don't know what to tell you. I don't spend nearly as much time reading every post in this forum as you do.

For example, when I see you and uke arguing, I don't read either one of your posts. I just assume it's a rehash of the same old stuff.

cliff's--You people need to tolerate quiet bigots. Also, I'm not going to tolerate these other people I basically think are another form of quiet bigot. Actually I'm going to turn it into a conspiracy too.

There I saved you 50k words.

We'll go ahead and file that with the rest of the Canadian opinions about American politics

Those are the wrong examples as you would have to give Poster XYZ's name and if he could then say he is not in line with all of the points you attribute to his forum he would say your generalities do not apply. That is the tactic as we can RIGHTLY infer for a forum despite differences in the individuals.

You are absolutely clueless and useless on this topic if you think that quote by me is me not clearly expressing that point as my view. "Doubt' there does not, in any way imply certainty.

You just do not understand the Carlin and will guffaw thru ignorance thinking you do.

Me saying - I think sidewalks are a fine place to say 'hi' to a woman

uke retorting - you are wrong. It is a bad place but I know about dozen public places where it is fine


THAT is the Carlin Meme. It is not just uke asserting on a matter of opinion he is right, when it should not be stated as factual BUT the worse offense is telling someone they are wrong on something it is impossible to be wrong on as it is just competing opinions.

And yet I can cite many instances where you pick out something I say, in the midst of arguments with uke or others, while you somehow do not pick out anything they say despite some pretty egregious stuff said.

That’s the point. I never talk about how posters here are XYZ unless I’m willing to back it up. You do talk about groups of posters and can’t back it up at all.

I obviously can't stop you from believing what you choose to believe.

Your entire argument and reason for starting this thread depend on that quote, that quote is a boiled down essence of your whole position.

So yea you can hand wave it away, but then why start this thread and why keep posting in it?

If I say orange, you are not arguing that orange is wrong, you are arguing that when I say orange its insincere and I must have another opinion that I am not expressing, because fear of lefties, that is your whole argument ITT.

So however you want to cut it, your whole argument is founded on you being the arbiter of people's true opinion.

LOL U, woat poster.

That awesome enough for you?