It's not a great point 'smashing' is largely in the mind. It takes two sides to discuss things so most people simply don't bother much with those who are stuck on personal attacks/nonsense. As 6ix says, they have agency so most do something more interesting or also indulge their childish side - we all have one.

Yeah, and I was saying that's not the reality of the words typed. I was speculating about how you might've made the error.

That doesn't really help the discourse.

I'm not ****ing with you. Honestly, Fly is close to the bottom of the list of posters who are *******s simply for the **** of it. There's pretty much always a broader point.

Yeah I never claimed to be above it. I indulge too much but I also never pretend it is productive. I know it is a frustrating time in a frustrating world and having an enemy to lash out at is attractive.

But there is more at stake now. These guys, and I, should be on the same side. We don't have to be 100% identical or accepting of each other's points, tactics or scale imo, but apparently that is one point where we differ.

The guys who lament the state of the discourse.

Like, if personA is right about topicZ and personB is wrong, the onus always seems to be on personA to make sure the discourse is not sullied while personB is the one ****ing up the situation from the beginning.

I feel pretty solid on this one. Let me put it to you this way, imagine there is ever a 2+2 meet up and your whole tribe is seated at a ten top, if dvaut gets up to mingle fly is definitely getting up to go with him.

Wait, his ******* posts helps the discourse? Dude was spouting wingnut theories about me being banned for racist comments under another name before his crew came back and settled him down to regular-froth.

I'll accept that I am bias enough to miss his merit some of the time, but. that's. the. point. Also, I challenge you to accept that you overlook counterproductive posting by him due to your own bias. The lessons itt which are being claimed by him and dvaut came at a pretty high risk that required Dom to put up with more aggression than was needed, and more than many would have. Lots of people would have simply bounced, gotten more stubborn, etc. and never returned with honest clarifications. That was a key part of the success here and it was despite the tactics, not because of them. Too bad we can't talk about that without being accused of trying to silence blm (lol at a forum policing claiming to be in the league of blm action and issues you insulting pos fly) because there is more to unpack there. My little dog barks at the mailman every day and the mailman leaves everyday. My little dog now thinks the mailman leaves because he barks. My little dog is likely as smart as fly.

And yeah I dislike bullies. I think standing up to bullies whenever they present themselves is a noble battle. They must be smashed.

Yeah well don't include me in that group. I didn't lament ****, I was taking about how it makes us vulnerable and is not conducive to coming together WHERE APPROPRIATE AND VALUABLE. It's not about being nice, it's about the end game. There are levels. Everything is binary with "you guys"...like if I say hey, why are you ****ting on someone who is OPENLY trying to talk to you it means I also think you should hear out David duke. It's doesn't extrapolate my postion because someone is too obtuse to see...like can it even be qualified as nuance it's so basic?

It isn't about being nice. It's about making ground.

As long as it doesn't make him consider voting R we'll probably be ok on this one.

Wait, if this,

is in reference to this,

there's been a serious communication breakdown.

So how is that different than this,



other than be as nice as possible while you do it?

Who isn't meeting whom on common ground?

Oh for sure. The communication breakdown is where I never represented or believed any of the ideas assigned to me in that quote nor agree with any of the positions I'm supposed to hold. Or no, you mean he isn't really implying over and over that him being challenged in anyway is akin to challenging blm and supporting the rightwing (like, probably a closet racist) because he is the purest version of correct there is? That you overlook this self-indulgent line is up to you. I'm not onboard with real issues of injustice being wielded to settle ego bruises.

Really man. I'd like to see one single glimpse of a consession, even a consideration of one, on any ****ing point I've made before you bold a few words that supposedly nails me cuz this is boring. I mean cheers on the unified front and all, but in reality the collective you guys are so proud of is just a standard broculture. Hey tho, #squadgoals amirite?

Also, lost in all this, mainly because people like DVaut and Fly absolutely do not need safe spaces, is just how judgemental and disrespectful you (The King's 'you' mainly) are being about their reactions. Who are you to say they're not genuinely infuriated about this topic and are honestly expressing themselves, and who are you to say they should temper this fury over something that is actually infuriating?

My personal flashpoint is Bell Curve race science. I see red. It's far from the only topic i'm passionate about, but it's the one where I have zero patience. You can't say this isn't the same for them. It's close for me. We're not talking about some bull**** here, we're talking about propaganda that's propped up a war machine that's resulted in millions of deaths and untold suffering around the world the past 4 decades.

The one-sided coddling is so ingrained you're asking for a handicap before it even begins.

Like, this was my 2nd reply to you:

The difference is in what those posts are in response to. Mine was to you making me defend myself against a position i don't hold. His was a random declaration that was a non-response to a post not addressing him.

No, he's not. That you're challenging him is a coincidence, not the focal point.

We're still talking about propaganda.

I mean, you do recall I'm the who politely explained to Dominic what was going on, right?

huh. Address the part of the paragraph you didn't snip from my quote. Or how about this, tell me one thing you don't see eye to eye with fly on. Quote one of his many posts to me itt and bold something you'd like to challenge. Or maybe keep it rhetorical and we will just notice that you haven't taken the opportunity before now.

Literally every post you made in this thread has been yelling at people for incorrect tactics, except more recently where you went on an insane tangent about how much you hate me in some sort of rambling attempt to hurt my feelings, up to and including you writing some 'shipping fan faction about me and DVaut. (notice the absolute importance on Civility and The Discourse goes away when it's time to tell a leftist he's dumber than a dog)

AFAIK we've never interacted before, and you aren't a regular of any of the subforums I frequent. At least not under the Johnny Truant account. So yeah, I suspect previously banned poster. And if you're a previously banned poster with an obsession with me, the betting market on the reason for that prior banning has a marked favorite.

OK, and because I do enjoy spiking the football, the reason I brought up BLM is because very specifically the **** you wrote about Putin sowing division in the American electorate was a reference to **** like this:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...BLM-protesters

or

https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...k-race/542796/

That's right, *****, I read your stories too. And the insane idea that when I read this:
that I'm supposed to think the bad actor there was the Soviets for doing divisiveness.... Naw. Get the **** out of here with that ****.

You're losing me. I snipped myself.

I'm saying birds of a feather, not some malicious collective hivemind.

Gimme a sec.

Putin made people more misinformed, he didn't make them more deplorable and racist and divisive. The former relies on the latter already being true.

Just getting caught up on this thread and I'll just reiterate how many people developed really, really strong emotions defending Dominic, defended the righteousness of his story and his ability to tell it without a response (and not the rightness of the story, which Dominic walked back and fast became very irrelevant). And very quickly pivoted to criticizing the inappropriateness of the tone of the responses and the futility of responding ("what's the point of all this argument!? Do you really think you can win like this!?!")

As I said, I see nothing but the same tactics trying to reach the same end, only very very thinly veiled. Almost transparent. And that is: shut up, this story is important to tell, it's very critical the left learns its lesson here (check out Paul D's like first or second post ITT where he laid it all bare).

Lecturing the duplicitous forces of the anti-war movement must be done interrupted and without talking back, and only scumbag lowlife degenerates would dare speak ill of these precious memories. OK, OK, if you insist, sure, they're totally false, none of them are real, but you're wasting your time pointing that out, be nice, OK? It's just really audacious to speak out of turn like this, is what they want you to know.

To the point

Did I really write 'stag' props? Man I edit and still miss obvious typos.

and one of the funniest parts was when those very same ppl accused others of "tone-policing".

like, huh?

The Dems lost because of online flame wars is the new stab-in-the-back myth.

Not really irony, more like the good advice that you just didn't take.

Either you are a liar, um....or something who is comfortable making things up that are demonstrably not true when it suits you. [/QUOTE]
This is the part where you pretend I had the view you wanted to put up your dukes over!! Since you are a bad dog, (I never said there was absolute importance to civility. Like never. But if I had this would have been a good one)

It didn't take long for you schtick to be apparent and it isn't that amazing. Nope it all happened in this thread. I don't really care how you arrived at such a stupid narcissistic conclusion except I hope the people who rally behind you realize the sick implications of it. Nobody could think you are an ******* without also being a racist. It's the perfect indefensible illustration of what you usually are able to weave at least a thread of "broader lesson" into laid bare. If your friends like ya too much to tell you, it's offensive af to pretend disliking you is a sign of racism.

Yeah foul on the play. Call it back. Never read those articles. Was never like, in here with that ****. There is a whole world outside your head and whole thought processes other than your own. I mean here we are again, me trying to explain that the bolded word in your sentence is why we will miss each other over and over. You think everything is a single "the". It's pitiful, but it keeps it simple for you which you like. Everyone who sounded similar to you is the same. Everyone who doesn't virtual high five you must be vanquished.

My point, the actual reason I brought that up, was remarking on the tactic. Not the result. Read that a few times. The subject was propaganda and how it is used. Whatever it reminds you of is something else. Even though YOU didn't want to talk about it, others besides you had a conversation that included things you didn't think up. (Yeah this he part I exist in the thread outside of you, the part I am doing things other than "yelling" at the "leftists") As you skimmed the post looking for something that could trigger a response you'd like to bang out, you made up a straw man. It's a basic tactic of weak thinkers who are dishonest and like to spike the ball. It's often enough trick your friends that there is some method to your madness but links to articles you make believe I cited to a form a conclusion you invented for me is the little dog bark that will eventually make me go away and leave you king of the front door. Lost you I bet? Chalk it up to me hating leftists.