You say that about all conservatives. Of course you're occasionally correct.
I'm jealous. I clearly need to step up my QAnon game.
QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon QAnon
That ought to get me in the top 3.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Cheater!
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
I haven’t said that about gameface, LG, and Colton. They’re all conservative, are they not? I don’t think Ron, Jazz girl, or Fishin are exactly liberal or progressive, right? Perhaps the conservatives who I have labelled as trolls (Buck, Al, and Jazzyfresh) should engage in some introspection?
Bucknutz
Well-Known Member
I’m a troll? I’m a conservative? I am neither.
Just more misinformation from you.
Debating your posts or having a different opinion than you, is not trolling. I’m not going to be a cheerleader for you. This forum is left leaning and I see many people gang together and bully people on the right. It makes me want to stand up for them.
I’m an independent and I vote for people on both side of the isle. I vote for more pro-business persons. I like social programs (UBI, healthcare, retirement, etc) but hate how government runs them. I’m not anti-abortion. I love the second amendment. I like rules and laws. I like immigration, especially if it was done correctly. It’s easy for me to call out both sides. I know that presidents really are not to blame for most issues, nor will I praise them for things they say they accomplished (jobs losing or gaining, gas prices, ect). I love education (k-12 and college). Yet I believed more majors should be trade schools. I am pro healthcare and vaccines, yet I don’t believe anything should be mandated. I believe everyone should be treated equally (trans, LGBTQ+, race, furries). I believe that government should stay out of business. Government should not be in the business of choosing winners or losers. If the government hurts a business, that business should be adequately compensated.
Yes, I’m a big fan of my Governor. If that is what makes you think I am conservative, you would be wrong. I like action and he takes action when needed. You might not like the action he takes. I don’t agree with everything he does but I find him a net positive.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
I’m fine revising my list. You might not be a troll. I put you on block for several months and it seemed like over the last little bit you’ve had more productive conversations. At the time I made my assessment, you definitely exhibited to me trolling behavior. So it’s great for people to change or for my opinions to change. What I resent is the charge that I label anyone conservative a troll @One Brow which clearly isn’t the case. The other two posters I’ve called trolls, Jazzyfresh and Al, anyone want to dispute that they are exactly what I described them as?
Last edited by a moderator:
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
It is not trolling but the truth of the statement wasn't the point. It has become the fashion lately for a disturbing number of those on the political left to immediately resort to name-calling. In their minds, if you discredit the source then you discredit whatever was said.
I'm not sure if you've ever listened to the Munk Debates but they're usually excellent. This past year's debate exhibited this exact same tactic The Thriller was using on you, and the audience really turned on those employing it. The resolution being debated this year was "Be it resolved, don't trust the mainstream media". On the pro side was Douglas Murray and Matt Taibbi. Arguing on the con side was Malcom Gladwell and Michelle Goldberg. The audience was polled before the debaters started speaking, and had a nearly even split. After the debate, the audience was polled again and the results were the largest aggregate change of mind in the history of the event.
It is about 90 minutes long but if you've got the time, it is interesting.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvaf7XOOFHc
Last edited:
Bucknutz
Well-Known Member
Thanks, I do have time in the morning to watch this. I have never heard of the Monk debate but this seems extremely interesting.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
This Matt Taibbi? Perhaps some sources deserve to be discredited? Taibbi, like John Solomon before him and like Glenn Greenwald before him, has been running Russian disinformation for a while. Sorry to burst your alt reality Al with actual information about the propagandists you admire:
View: https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/1600497921455259650?s=46&t=_cHW5HizHCT9o1w6dBmqAQ
View: https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/1600497923246153733?s=46&t=_cHW5HizHCT9o1w6dBmqAQ
View: https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/1600613935920676864?s=46&t=_cHW5HizHCT9o1w6dBmqAQ
Sounds like a credible journalist…
View: https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/1600497921455259650?s=46&t=_cHW5HizHCT9o1w6dBmqAQ
View: https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/1600497923246153733?s=46&t=_cHW5HizHCT9o1w6dBmqAQ
View: https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/1600613935920676864?s=46&t=_cHW5HizHCT9o1w6dBmqAQ
Sounds like a credible journalist…
Last edited by a moderator:
Colton stays out of the mess, and at least on social issues, LogGrad98 and Gameface have gotten more liberal over the years. 'Not exactly liberal' is not "conservative".
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Isn’t that one of the problems right now with the conservative movement? MAGA extremism has largely taken it over. Those who aren’t liberal used to primarily identify as conservative. But now such descriptors don’t even apply to them anymore as they’ve rejected MAGA extremism. So what does being a conservative even mean anymore? Especially since such descriptors have changed drastically in just the past decade.
I feel like you might be omitting some pretty important context. You were caught making a joke at my expense and now seem to be doubling down after I refuted your claim that I label everyone “conservative” as a troll. Which, I’m fine if you wanted it to be taken as a joke. I’m however, not in agreement with it if you’re serious about that claim. I’m curious, who on this site is conservative in your view? Could you provide a quick list?
Red
Well-Known Member
This is a minor point, but you really need to clean up your syntax.
Apparently, I’m going to have to step up my game as well. These are pieces of the moon. I considered posting these in the Artemis thread, but I did not personally collect these on the lunar surface. However, they are slices of meteorites. Nothing like looking up at the moon, in the night sky, with these in hand, and realizing you own a piece.
These were collected by Bedouins in the Morocco/Algeria border areas.
It does appear that I have mentioned QAnon more than meteorites. The real question, from my perspective, is what the number of times I have mentioned QAnon, or actually, the number of times anybody else has mentioned QAnon, has to do with the price of tea in China? Well, nothing, obviously.
However, I am still confused as what the number of times I mentioned QAnon actually means? Is it a problem? Does it say something about me, in particular, that I somehow need to understand and come to terms with? And will my insurance cover treatments? I thought my focus on understanding irrational social movements was only natural, personally, since social science was my thing for many years, and I think the movement is genuinely interesting. Cultural history is so interesting. And I do not have to justify that fact, as I see it, to AI-O-Meter.
Would it not be more appropriate, rather than count how many times I mentioned QAnon, that AI-O-Meter should have to post an analysis of each and every time I mention QAnon? Why should he be allowed to be lazy about it?
In other words, why does he get to avoid context? Why not post an analysis of each instance, and explain to all of us exactly why this somehow proves whatever the heck he is trying to prove? Since I still have no idea what his point is?
Simply put: I want to know exactly why the number of times I mentioned QAnon disproves the reasons I told AI-O-Meter as to what my motivation was in the first place?
Why on Earth is this the hill AI-O-Meter has chosen to die on?