Yes.

Your summary of the start of the thread is incorrect.

It started fairly reasonable, remember X poster was actually calling for lockdowns and masks at the beginning, at the beginning there was a much wider range of posters and it was all relatively mild. Sure there was derp, but it was not the dominant voice it became.

However conspiritard posters soon realised the post was unmoderated and they could post twitter bombs etc there and no one would delete etc, and X poster had to modulate his approach to fit in with his thought leaders arguing for the exact opposite of the things he was arguing for originally and USA no1.

The derp really only started once "burn through" became a concept. It was there before, but now it became dominant.

As you liked to point out, X poster back pedalled into the derp.

There was actually a fair amount of protest from non derp posters but they all quickly left because they dont derive the amusement I do from arguing with the derp.

So the thread became an arena of derp and those that like to poke the derp, but it did not start out that way at all.

The core of th thread was Trump rightest propaganda welcome. Anti Trump, leftists not.

That the main player changed on certain covid issues did not matter as long as he blamed the right people and exonerated the right ones.

That most people were good with that alignment was the key. You could be wrong but aligned with that, and left alone, or correct but not aligned with that and attacked.

I find it quite likely that indeed a bad thread full of bad people somewhere on some other forum on the internet exists. Why we need to obsess about this here is beyond me. At least we aren't all having to memorize the acornyms of some poster from some forum on some completely other domain where Cuepee had his glory days. Oh wait.

QP, have you ever considered complaining about BFI in ATF?

'They, OVER THERE, are the only extremes and not us.'

Says the Politics forum.

Oh and says the BFI when I was posting there as well.


Funny how both sides feel only the other is the problem and they have nothing to learn from each other despite the exact same issue being at play in both.

Trolly and uke if posting in BFI covid thread in any left leaning way (Trump was not a messiah and Obama not to blame for everything) would have been evicertated over there for toxic posting and calls for the mods to ban them. Meanwhile their most toxic trolling posts in this forum meet silence or are said to be at least 'fun'.

TS from BFi, posting here, and with his right views would also be eviscerated here. Calls for mods to ban him.


What would be in common? Uke, Trolly, TS would all say it has nothing to do with forum bias whey one side (partisan leaning) is considered good and the other not.

A complete inability to see outside the bubble is core function of living within one, so not surprising.

But it takes a true lack of awareness to not realize that if 'where you post' will determine the reception, even if the content never changes, that you likely then exist in an echo chamber.

You are the one complaining about how bad the BFI forum allegedly is, not I. So the "says the politics forum" seems to be...uh....you. I'm sorry that you feel your arguments are eviscerated here, but I'd honestly just suggest making better arguments. Or at least using paragraphs. Either way, nobody is calling for the mods to ban you so I'm not sure what you are complaining about.

I am quite certain the BFI mods aren’t going to ban people for posting lefty takes. They don’t care at all.

Shining a light on how people in echo chambers tend not to be able to see out is not complaining.

Showing how the exact same dynamic is at play in a way that is the opposite side of the coin irritates both because both sides want to not see that just being changing where they post moves them from a friendly clime to a hostile one when they think it post quality or their position that determines that.

How can uke/Trolly be seen as fine, ok, normal here, but be considered 'radical', 'crazy', 'extreme' there when they are saying the same things in both? Echo Box bubble, that is how.

And yes, certain people here are always pushing the mods to ban me.

Maybe the reason people think I'm "fine, ok, normal" around here is because they agree with my arguments and disagree with your arguments? However, that doesn't make the politics forum an echo chamber since clearly there are people (SUCH AS YOU) who emphatically disagree with everything I say as opposed to echoing it. Nor does whether or not BFI is an echo chamber (I have no idea if it is).

Uke complains about other guy constantly bringing up BFI in another thread. Mods excise discussion here. Uke has 5 posts just today still arguing about BFI with other guy.

But he can't see that he is part of the problem.

There is also a general catch all politics thread in the sports forum, which did/does discuss covid.

If we take generic derp poster from the BFI thread and take their opinions in to Pol/OOT/SE they get piled on in all of them.

If we take generic aggregate poster from Pol/OOT/SE and put them in the BFI thread that is reciprocated.

This is because the aggregate position in BFI would be No Lockdowns, No social distancing, No Masks and No Vaccines.

You cant use a thread were the consensus is absolutely an an extreme outlier anti technocratic position and use its aggression to counter opinion as proof of the same here.

Its just a completely circular argument and is so obviously mooted by the fact that the culture of that thread was the anti thesis to the culture to every other thread discussing the topic across several sub forums.

Sure that could be it. But that is betrayed by those same comments being perceived as 'wrong', 'not normal', etc there.

Unless you take the view that the same statements and positions are right situationally based on forum and vice versa.

If the only difference between being 'right' 'fine' is 'where you post them', that exposes an echo box.

You can gaslight all you want for cover but you absolutely know, even though now you will try not to admit it, that the general sentiment there was entirely one of Trump perfect, masterful in all ways. All fault is due to dirty immigrants and brown people living in Dem cities being run by Dem Governors and leadership and where those problems happen in Red States it is because of concentrations of dirty brown people, the leadership could not control.


You know any related sentiments to that, go unopposed and uncommented upon but if guys like myself, Monty or uke or Trolly, oppose any of that with facts and truth, then suddenly a bunch of people come out of the woodworks to decry us, and not the statement maker. There are two strains of those who decry. Those who absolutely support those types of statements and see them as accurate and true. The others are ones who say 'they don't necessarily support such statements but do not think we should be countering them'. The 'you could just not reply to them' crowd.

The dynamic behind such selective reply is that generally the aim or trajectory of the target (Dems, Libz, Obama) is one that is not sympathetic to the audience there and as such they are not roused to counter misinformation and are irritated by those who do, when it ends up in scuffles because the one lying then digs in.

That is the exact same dynamic here (I know, I know, 'it is them only not us', says both sides simultaneously) where uke, Trolly, etc can troll in one direction and not get called no matter how ludicrous but the person who hits reply is more likely to be told 'they could simply not reply', instead of the person trolling, making false statements being told they could not make them.

It is the ever present dynamic in Sport with super fans (fanatics). If I am super fan of one sport amongst regular fans and i lie and slag an opposing player (Larry Bird is a criminal amongst LA, Magic Johnson fans back in the day) i am not likely to be called on it by my fellow fans as i am projecting the lie in the right direction. Make that statement in the same spot about Magic and you get called on it. Make that same statement, instead near Boston fans and get called on it.

It is not because it is true in one area and not true in the other and is entirely due to 'sides'.

The disgustingly contrived bad faith accusations of gaslighting have to stop.

Dont agree with cupee = gaslighting.

Ironic that the person accusing others of cancellation uses such a blatantly aggressive rhetorical tactic to attempt shut down simple divergence from his perspective.

Elements of this existed in that thread but to call it the general sentiment is absolutely over stating it.

The general sentiment was more aligned to opposition to any interventions. Which of course is a more republican perspective but many of the posters ITT were accidental republicans in that regard of which Shuffle a high volume un attacked left wing poster in that thread and is a prime actual example of how your perspective is incorrect. An actual example, not gaslighting.

Attacks happened itt that thread if you deigned to talk back to X poster in the same way he talked to people who disagreed with him. Again look how little Shuffle was attacked, someone who has openly supported communist ideas. This is because he was anti intervention, well anti VAX specifically and never called TS the idiot that he is.

Also no actual reply to the phenomenon of that thread and its culture being oppositional to 3 other threads on the same topic in different forums, you wont directly engage with the point that clearly and obviously moots your argument, instead you argue around the edges and call people liars.

Sad and lame.

Mostly this seems tautological. Elites of all stripes don't represent the average person, it's in the definition.

Ok so if i quote posts from that thread showing Shuffle consistently and aggressively attacked, reported, etc, will you admit yuo are gaslighting or just shift to a Trump like line of 'ok they did say it ..but it does not matter'.

As it is FACT Shuffle was attacked in the exact same fashion, you, I and Monty were.

Shuffle was attacked towards the end of the thread but for conspiracy theories that went even to far for that thread and he was attacked to a degree by moderates and mods coming into the thread to see what the extreme crazy talk was about.

Lets not forget that Shuffle held a contradictory position that vaccines etc were bad but that covid also was going to kill nearly everyone and was probably invented on purpose to do just that.

Few of the attacks towards him relate to what you call the monolithic organisational principle of the thread e.g. Trump.

If you did an exhaustive compendium of attacks over the life of the thread he never got close to the volumes of attacks you did, not remotely close.

This is the actual FACT.

You were attacked much more consistently than he was, because you were much more directly oppositional to TS.

Please please note how I am claiming you are incorrect here without accusing you of gas lighting.

People can be incorrect without gaslighting, as you demonstrate very often.

Let's stop with the "gaslighting" and "bad faith" accusations for now.

Well what do you call it?

He goes from 'Shuffle was not attacked" as his example to prove me wrong.

I say he was and threaten to post examples and suddenly he switches to

- ok he was attacked but only for this one reason. Ok then maybe these two reasons.


Am I to call that 'good faith'? Use the Trumpian tactic of 'i never said", (oh you got proof) 'ok I said but did not mean it', 'ok I meant it but it just does not matter'.


My point re the BFI is there is SIDES and the sides matter more than the content. So if someone like SHuffle was seen to be adversarial to someone on the preferred side, he would be more likely to be attacked regardless of what his positions were. And if someone was seen as aligned (TS) he would generally be excused regardless of how ridiculous his positions were on any topic.

O.A.F.K himself being attacked was the biggest proof of that. Almost always challenging TS deliberately cribbed data with full and extensive data sets that showed were TS was cribbing and manipulating. That forum claimed they like TS because 'at least he posted data' and yet O.A.F.K was attacked constantly by TS and others. O.A.F.K fought back but was not a troll at all. All his fighting back was in reply to attacks.

Point being, if you countered the garbage you would get attacked. You could choose not to defend yourself but you could not prevent the attack.

Maybe try the novel approach of not calling it anything?

I'm pretty sure you used to do that. I seem to recall that when I first started posting in this forum about a year and a half ago, you were able to have normal disagreements with people. Now you seem to have difficulty disagreeing with people without accusations of lying, bad faith, gaslighting, or you mischaracterize their positions. Over, and over, and over again. It makes it really, really hard to engage with you, which is why I do it pretty rarely now.

1. It was a huge thread, of course Shuffle was attacked in it, internet gonna internet, your counter claim amounts to no more than nit picking, the important element, which is in faith with the debate, is what he was attacked for. He was not attacked consistently for being anti TS in the manner you were.

2. I was attacked by TS sure, but again, I was not actually attacked relationally to the element you insist was the core element of the thread, eg. Trumpism and blaming brown people etc. That was a tangential feature of that thread, one you heavily engaged in, that heavy engagement has blinded you to all the other elements of that thread.

3. It was one thread not the whole forum. "That forum claimed they like TS " is a completely false claim about BFI. TS is more hated than liked on the forum as whole, but did/does have some fan bois there. The important thing about that thread was that high volume BFI posters did not really frequent it (with some exceptions), posters who wanted to derp in an unmoderated thread made their home there.

QP, you know TS wants you to get all riled up, right? You crying about him is exactly what he wants.

I don't think that dynamic is reversable at this point.

There are certain styles of posting that I will clash with and the people with that style admit they like coming at me for "action".

I can post with Chez and others and get into ipretty extreme back and forths without any claims generally of it being bad faith. My biggest claim with him is that he seems to see arguments or positions I am not making, and then its impossible to pull him out of those rabbit holes. But I do not believe it is bad faith and so I can argue and argue with him without going there.

But yes, i know my POV will rarely align with the masses here, and I am fine debating and arguing it. Even vehemently. And i am generally do it in good faith until I feel they are not. As soon as i feel they are mocking or gaslighting then I just switch to doing same. You get what you give.


Look thinking about that underlying premise of the Twitter rule, maybe you guys should consider it for here. It would certainly force me to change my posting.

Twitter does allow for horrid things to be said, opinion wise, but not targeted things. Do not target specific people (ones you are debating with or talking about) with vitriol, threats, intimidation bullying, do not target groups, do not target actions (lets march on the capital and stop the certification).

I think some version of that could be implemented here, if you guys wanted and it would force a lot of clean up that will not happen otherwise.

Not crying Trolly. It is people in both forums crying about me shining the light of hypocrisy into both.

You both want the same thing. Safe bubbles devoid of those who hold differing views.