What online political forums REALLY are

Discussion in 'Politics' started by CoinBlazer, Dec 19, 2019.

  1. CoinBlazer

    CoinBlazer de omnibus dubitandum

    I came here expecting a civil and thoughtful exchange…
    Oh I see, dissent isn’t welcome here.
    This is just the sort of thing I’ve come to expect from [category of person].
    I know I’ll get labeled a troll for this, but [blatant trolling].
    How can you say the data supports you, when I have a personal anecdote of the exact opposite happening?!
    I challenge you to show me where I said [X].
    You never miss an opportunity to…
    How old are you, 14?
    If you [category of person] really cared about [good thing]…
    I love how everyone feels the need to put words into my mouth.
    I have been repeatedly attacked with senseless ad hominem arguments…
    Actually, I find this whole thing funny. By all means, continue to amuse me.
    Copied from [A]'s quote because: “** is on your ignore list.”
    Another obnoxious post from [person].
    [Horrible person] was [X]. This proves all [X]s are like [horrible person].
    I don’t understand what I’ve done to earn this hostility.
    I call 'em as I see 'em, and I’m not going to apologize for that.
    I think [something grossly politically incorrect] and if you disagree with me you’re a PC Nazi.
    Looks like I struck a nerve.
    [X] doesn’t mean what you think it means. We need to define our terms carefully.
    All the experts say…
    All the experts are wrong. (I know this for a fact even though I have no idea what we’re talking about.)
    [Issue] is important because [bizarre atrocity story]!!!
    You’re just arguing that way because [issue] doesn’t affect you.
    You’re just arguing that way because you hate [category of person and/or animal and/or inanimate object].
    Opposing [issue] is really supporting [horrible thing].
    [In a discussion about a certain class of people being victimized] Yeah, well, [story about that class of people victimizing someone else].
    You people are so rude, just because I’m new here.
    I don’t need to engage in rational debate about this issue because [ad hominem attack].
    I’m just expressing my opinion - it’s a free country, you know.
    As [member of group], I believe [groundless supposition].
    I’ve met an expert in [area being discussed], and they say [something supporting my position].
    Oh, sure, if you’re willing to dream up some elaborate example, I’m sure you can prove any point you want. But the simple truth is…
    You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
    Just because [insulting description of opponent] doesn’t understand [previously advanced argument] doesn’t mean it isn’t valid.
    You want the terrorists to win!
    How can you think [behavior] is wrong when you don’t believe in absolute morality?
    Sure I/someone like me may have done/said [X], but your side did it too/did something worse, so my side is still better.
    Since you think [X] should be legal, you must also have no problem with [something unspeakably horrible and totally irrelevant].
    Accepting your view of [X] would inevitably produce [bad thing]. Obviously.
    I didn’t even bother to read that fancy BS you just posted because I already know you’re wrong.
    Your opinion on this issue doesn’t count because you believe [position on totally unrelated issue].
    You say that you’re a [member of group], but I know that can’t be true because no real [member of group] would ever support your position.
    It’s like you all have something to prove.
    You [category of person] will stop at nothing to attack [X]!
    Common Sense says [unprovable argument] is right while [equally unprovable argument] is wrong.
  2. CoinBlazer

    CoinBlazer de omnibus dubitandum

    Stolen from another political forum.
  3. JohnHamilton

    JohnHamilton Well-Known Member

    What you see here is a reflection of the political climate of this country is becoming. The Democrats cannot accept the results of an election if they lose. You see that in the national and state elections over and over again.

    Since our founding, one of the factors that has made this country great has been the peaceful passage of power from one office holder to another. There have been instances when that was threatened and it nearly ended our republic. The worst instance with when Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 presidential election. That resulted in the Civil War.

    Another instance was in 1800 when the presidential election ended in tie between Thomas Jefferson and Arron Burr. The election went to the House of Representatives where some hot-headed Federalists were looking to perhaps end the republic because they could end the impasse. Fortunately, Alexander Hamilton intervened, despite the fact that he and Jefferson did not get along, and got Jefferson elected.

    In 1824 Andrew Jackson came in first in the presidential election, but did not get a majority in the Electoral College. The election went to the House where Speaker, Henry Clay, who finished last in the general election was out of the running, helped John Quincy Adams elected president. When Adams appointed Clay to be his secretary of state (which was then viewed as a stepping stone to the presidency), the Jackson people cried foul. They claimed that there had been “a corrupt bargain” between Adams and Clay. Instead causing endless problems, the Jackson supporters geared up for the 1828 election and won it easily.

    1876 was another disputed election. Without going into the particulars, the Republicans stole the presidential election from Samuel J. Tilden. There were threats of another civil war, but Tilden wisely convinced his supporters to cool it, which they did. As a part of the corrupt bargain that made Rutherford B. Hays president, the civil rights of African Americans were put on hold for almost a century. Some people called Hays, “Ruther-fraud.”

    Some Democrats don’t comprehend what they are playing with here. The consequences could be dire.
    Mopar Dude likes this.
  4. Mopar Dude

    Mopar Dude Well-Known Member

    My first foray into social media was making a comment on an ancient rock & roll record on YouTube. It was a silly and wistful comment. Almost immediately I received two heated, profanity laced and hateful replies. I was absolutely stunned. I immediately responded back and commented that my grandkids may see that and would they please temper their comments. Well, that set me up to be so completely lambasted and belittled by two people I will never know.... The experience set me to thinking about this whole explosion of social media.

    See it used to be if you had something negative to say, then you put your big boy pants on and would say it to a mans face and hope that you were big enough to accept the consequences. With the advent of social media, mannerless folks now have the ability to be nameless and unseen brutes. It shows the true nature of a person. If I don't have the mental wits to deal with you, I'll just call you a name so that I feel better.

    The second debilitating cause and effect of social media is a persons inability to communicate effectively with other people. I have two young people in my employ that do absolutely nothing but work on the web. They don't want to interact with people and I don't want them to. They simply don't know how. However they do the digital work that I need done flawlessly. But I worry about these young mens personal relationships.

    I could go on, but I have said too much already. @CoinBlazer, you are blessed with the tools you need to succeed. You keep working within your debate club. It is teaching you social skills that many of your peers are sorely lacking.
  5. JoeNation

    JoeNation Patron Saint of Idiots

    Like the effects of alcohol, isn't social media an accurate reflection of who we really are like it or not?
  6. Recusant

    Recusant Member

    To hear you tell it, the political division in the US is caused almost entirely by the Democratic Party. To ignore the antics of the Republican Party and essentially hold them blameless is a remarkably myopic view of the situation. The unrelenting vitriol directed at Obama on this site in the past is evidence of the very sort of unwillingness to accept the results of elections that you would lay solely at the feet of Democrats. I have been a member of a US oriented and stoutly right-wing discussion board for about ten years. I know for a fact that there is a strong element of projection in many of the accusations levelled by the right wing.

    Obama never gave the slightest indication that he wanted to make himself president beyond his alloted terms, yet there were regular exclamations that that is exactly what he was going to do. Nor did he try to discredit the electoral process, which would have elicited howls of outrage from the right. Trump regularly 'jokes' about how nice it would be if he remained president well beyond 2024, and has made attacking the electoral process a standard part of his approach to politics. Before the 2016 election he was already making loud noises about how he wouldn't accept the results if he lost.

    People on the right either say nothing or agree with this wannabe tinpot dictator nonsense. There is a definite bent toward authoritarianism here. I think that on the right there is an assumption that those on the left wish for an autocrat because they themselves would be happy with an autocrat who promoted things they like. Their fear of a leftist autocrat is born of their desire for an autocrat of the right. Trump clearly would like to be such an autocrat, and he has the strong support of the right wing in America.
    JoeNation likes this.

Share This Page