Need to work on those feels, because you have accused me of gaslighting all the way through this thread, were in fact all it is not agreeing with you.

You are not far from simply seeing counter opinion as bad faith.

Indeed I have seen examples of where you have behaved like this, where you are so invested in your subjective opinion and how it must be true that you believe anyone expressing disagreement can only be doing so in bad faith.

I'll try to make this my last post on this subject.

And therein lies the problem, IMO. Your feeling of when people are "gaslighting", "arguing in bad faith", or "lying" rather than simply disagreeing with you is not very reliable. And I know for an absolute fact that you constantly misrepresent people's positions, because you've done it to me several times and I've seen you do it to others; I assume that you just get so caught up in arguments and how right you believe you are, that you don't even realize you're doing it much of the time. At least I sure hope that's what it is, because if it's intentional, then...ugh.

Whatever you want to call it buddy, just know that TS would find it hilarious that you’re bitching about him here. Living rent free in your head for maybe years.

I could tell you exactly where in the last big argument we had I felt you went from good faith dispute to spamming bad faith arguments if it was not all deleted. ONce you did that, my feeling of ever giving you good faith arguments is gone.

Not saying this to be dismissive but I don't need you guys to validate my view. I am quite comfortable in it.

And that does not mean I do not recognize I cannot always be wrong, as I can and have been. But when I am confident in my position you will always see I will bet on it and put it to outside test. You guys might not put value on that but it means I genuinely believe it.

In internet land I was hazard the vast majority of arguments are 'sides' based where the person is more vested than a believer. It is a diss or sides thing. And when challenged they never want to submit to any outside scrutiny or test.

It is what we see with Trumpers who swear 'it was rigged' until they end up in court and suddenly can 'see the truth'.

I legit believe some people can and do gaslight themselves and believe right up until they have to bet or face court, etc.

So the point is that if I believe what I say and am willing to stand behind it you will release why I won't relent or take any perception that someone is gaslighting lightly.

No TS would be irritated, just as you guys are that i am in both. I enjoy stirring both 'sides' up.

Cool story bro.

The whole point is your feelings are utterly wrong, in fact paranoid and hysterical. You have become sucked up into the emotional whirl wind of your own subjectivity and its having a heavy and massively damaging effect on your quality as a poster.

Your takes on when people are arguing in bad faith or whatever are scorching white hot, and the fact that you use your own highly arrogant and flawed judgement to then justify your own resort to bad faith further leverages your descent into outright **** posting.

No one is irritated by your opinions, its the horrible way you express them that causes the irritation, and to make it worse you are openly expressing pride in basically bringing a pointless wrecking ball into every discussion you are in.

QP, maybe consider that people are not mind readers, they can only argue against what you actually type, what you type might sometimes not accurately reflect the ideality of your argument you have in your mind.

If people are arguing against what they actually read rather than what you are thinking its not bad faith.

You cannot argue against what someone types. you can argue against what you think it means - finding out what is means usually require a fair amount of work and no little generosity.

A common mistake is to argue against what we would mean if we had said what they said.

As you argue against what I typed.

No I argued against what I think you meant.

Hopefully I was near enough (I do try hard) but it's a two way process.

Ok but its a meaningless clarification, you arrived at what you thought I meant from reading what I typed, how else?

Im not arguing for straight jacket literal interpretations, just that there will be a constant gap between what is typed and what is meant as language is always a mitigation not an absolute representation of conscious ideality.

Whatever meaning people arrive at, it comes from what one types, there is no other exchange.

Different people will derive sometimes very different meaning from the exact same typing, it still comes from the typing.

Ultimately the point is that people can entirely in good faith argue against something one feels is not what one is arguing.

Not very nice to deny Cuepee his favorite debate tactic.

This!!!

This, too!!!

Carlin meme.

Nothing factual about what you say here. Proper counter is "i know you are but what am I" as it is just emotional drivel.

I can cite real factual examples to everything I say as you say 'Shuffle was welcome and not attacked', 'ok he was attacked but only once, I mean twice'.

The behavior I am referencing is not just seen by me but is EXACTLY spelled out in the article that is now widely being applauded as a must read for how the Internet is impacting discourse.

And the universal response you see is each and every Bubble saying 'ya but not us.. that may apply to everyone else, but not us'.


You love the term gaslighting and you are gaslighting yourself if you think uke and Trolly could have went into the BFI and engaged with TS and his handful of posters by countering the nonsense they say and not ended up attacked and in flame wars, as you, I, Monty and Shuffle did. And yet uke and Trolly get no grief here for their worst trolling.

YOu are gaslighting yourself if you think TS and his handful of similar minded posters could come into Politics and express their views (Trump perfect) and not end up attacked and in flame wars. And yet in the BFI they were not only tolerated but mostly applauded.

In any application of logic, where one is being honest it is not possible to recognize then that a dynamic of 'sides' is at play. Each grouping cannot be 'right' or 'wrong' based only on where they post.

So the only logical rebuttal you can give to that, is to say 'ok that might be true for them but that is not your situation'. If you think me an outlier that would be argument and not to deny the reality of dynamics at play.



And while you hate me calling it gaslighting, it is when we discuss stuff like the above, that I will know if you are gaslighting or not, as you are too smart to not be able to recognize the dynamic I am pointing at exists, so then if instead you go off in other directions or try to avoid or bury that point, it tells me you don't want to engage it as you either know it is true or have no response.

I tried.

All you are saying is I have a subjective opinion, divergence is gaslighting.

So doing the exact thing everyone is calling you our for.

You are a vacuum of self awareness.

Also please quote me saying he was attacked once no twice, guess what, you cant.

JFC, its you accusing me of calling you creepy (which never happened LDO) all over again.

Not just a tactic.

It is not just my view that internet and forum speech has degraded the way people communicate with one another.

What a person might admit, acknowledge, concede, acquiesce or be graceful about face to face is often a flame war where neither side will concede an inch.

If you accept that to be largely true online, then gaslighting or bad faith has to be present, if something you would admit or concede otherwise is said.

So the only way one can disagree with me on that is to disagree that internet discourse has degraded the way people communicate as indicated.

What?

This is a gargantuan goal post shift. This is your other favourite tactic, though I suspect you must be unaware of it.

Disagreeing with your constant claims of gaslighting and bad faith is not the same as disagreeing that the internet may or may not have degraded communication.

No that is not what I am saying at all so I reject your misrepresentations.

If a person wants to avoid discussing the core issues of how dialogue has changed on the net they can simply wave their hand and say it is just "subject opinion divergence' and nothing more. You like Comedy and I like Drama and neither of us is wrong.

The article above speaks to other dynamics at play, which are dishonesty tactics (gaslighting, et al). NOw you can say you reject the article whole cloth and no such exists, and you have a right to believe that, but I then disagree.

So when I point something out just because you throw up the defensive shield 'subjective opinion ONLY' does not mean I have to accept it as so.

Example, if you say 'there is no such dynamic between the BFI Covid thread and this Politics forum as you describe it. uke, Trolly would get the same reception there as they do here and vice versa,', I will say you are being dishonest and gaslighting.

I mean, it is possible you have so deluded yourself you might believe that, but I cannot believe that.

So if I am wrong it is not in my position but in that I did not think you were so deluded.


And you absolutely did go from citing Shuffle at first as an example of a poster who could post volumes in the BFI and not get attacked. I then threatened to go get quotes of him being attacked as I know it was on regular over more than one topic. You then pivoted your argument to 'ok he gets for reason X, oh and reason Y and maybe reason Z'.



To then try and save your point you tried to say 'ok but it was not about Trumpy stuff only... it was over other issues' as if that was my point. It is not.

My point is in either forum if you are at odds with what is the main accepted view (Trump, Covid, Trans, Rogan, etc, etc) then you will be attacked. Shuffle is not the proof against that.

False, no goal post shift at all.

I am stepping back from my arguments specifically or yours and speaking in general.

I am never saying I only use it correctly nor that any one has to agree. I will never say I cannot be wrong in any circumstance.

What I was addressing was the idea that it is a simply a 'tactic', which to me suggests disingenuous use, as opposed to when I say it, me believing it in fact being done.

Again your agreeance with my belief is not required. I am saying I say it good faith based on my assessment.

Even if you think 'I am crazy and obviously wrong' (your right), that does not mean I am using it as a tactic or bad faith measure.

Shuffle simply being attacked is in no way proof of your argument, and if you were being intellectually honest that would not be close to contentious, why he was attacked, volumes of attack and relative degree of attack relative to other posters are all of course absolutely germane to the discussion. You are simply trying a very weak gotcha. Rampant hypocrisy. Sad.

I gave this my best shot QP, you keep seeing monsters under the bed, you keep accusing people of calling you creepy when they have not etc.

Just try to not to play the victim when this behaviour alienates everyone.

So, your takeaway from my one-liner was that you thought I was suggesting that gaslighting and bad-faith posting are not problems on the internet?

What we type is a mechanism for aligning our common understanding. The meaning is not in what is typed. When weu disagree with what we udnerstand from what is typed that is frequently down to a misunderstandign about what is meant by what is typed. Yes, on the internet we have to use typing to provide the +ve and -ve feedback to communicate properly.

Th imprtant part of the clarification is that it is a joint endeavour. And it's often tough and slow and painful. Particualerly with peopel who type the same words as each other when they mean slightly different things.