True enough, though I think you’ll be hearing from:
4 Likes
Congratulations, you’re a high-level republican!
3 Likes
Cool, I’ve also been clear that I was discussing the phenomenon as a whole the entire time. I don’t really know why you’re arguing with me.
I have looked at earlier tweets already. Overall it seems to be a limited pool of accounts who are either trollies or bottom-feeding morons who would have remained in their little pools had a wider light not been shone on them.
If you’re happy with accepting things which are “least false” then that’s a shame. I’ll stick with things that are actually true.
Hey, thank you for that. I hadn’t seen/heard it (don’t really watch TV except occasionally for entertainment) and I think it was really good.
I’m also completely unsurprised that Fox didn’t air it. I can’t see that they’ve changed their stripes since Ailes left, they are still little more than a propaganda outlet for the nastiest, most regressive faction of the Republican party.
5 Likes
Well then, the correction I’m sure you’re doing of all the Trump supporters out there on other websites must be keeping you very busy.
6 Likes
She makes some incredibly important points, I think.
4 Likes
I’ve argued with plenty of them. Any more assumptions you’d like to make?
It’s the age of truthiness, friend. You’re part of a dwindling minority.
If Hillary Clinton is elected, there will be a nuclear war, but if her opponent is elected, women will lose the right to vote and be legally required to shave their armpits. I know this is true because I read it on the Internet. Also, Jill Stein is the devil, and Gary Johnson is high all the time.
Which may mean you’ve posted the only points of importance in this thread. (You’ve got me beat, anyway.)
4 Likes
Is the fact that the “Trump supporters” in “Trump supporters want women’s right to vote removed” means “some Trump supporters” and not “all Trump supporters” a truth that matters so deeply in this election cycle that it’s worth this level of effort? Of all the truths you believe need defending, why is this one to fight for?
4 Likes
It’s not “the one” to fight for. It started as a simple observation based on demonstrable fact that you people decided to make a huge deal out of. I hope you’re all as equally outraged at the Washington Post and Snopes for writing about the same info I did, that would at least be consistent.
None of the rest of us have made 100% of our posts on this BBS about this one item.
8 Likes
It’s like a Baudrillardian ‘desert of the real’. Watching Trump and Hilary debate is like watching two cartoon characters battle for the psychic ‘likes’ of the audience with weaponized memes.
That explains the tongue thing.
1 Like
And… what? So what? How does that change the validity of what I’ve said. Like I said above, please go and express equal outrage to the Washington Post and Snopes for doing the same thing if this really offends you so much.
You’d originally said, “the only reason this hashtag is trending is because people are criticizing.” That was a simple observation that no one has disagreed with here and which I explicitly agreed with and reaffirmed more than once.
You also said you didn’t see any tweets of people using it supportively. Others (and later I) pointed out cases of it being used supportively.
When I asked you about it you dropped the classic concern-trolley argument that since there weren’t a lot of people using the hashtag supportively, that we shouldn’t be talking about those that did, as if we did we’d all be hysterical exaggerators serving as fodder for the right to attack us, and later concern-trolled again telling us we were exaggerating/hysterical for saying things that were simple objective facts. You’ve misdescribed a correct and objectively true description as massive exaggeration, and been effectively telling us to stop talking about this topic far more than you’ve been arguing with people about your original topic that nobody disagreed with you about. It’s the part where you’re effectively telling other people they’re exaggerating when they aren’t and telling them to shut up that isn’t going over well.
And for what? So we’ll stop talking about a minor sideshow we’d all have mostly forgotten about if you hadn’t kept up the fight to defend a “truth” nobody’s disagreed with you about by telling us to stop saying things we weren’t saying.
Anyway, feel free to concern trolley to your heart’s content, I’m done.
7 Likes
Just responding to:
[quote=“Abrax_23, post:153, topic:87333, full:true”]
demonstrable fact that you people I decided to make a huge deal out of. [/quote]
…which I have fixed for you.
5 Likes
If I understand @Abrax_23 correctly (and Abrax, please correct me if I don’t), you’re saying that not just the truth but the whole truth matters. You seem to be asking us to compare these four statements:
a) Trump supporters advocate repealing the nineteenth amendment.
b) Some Trump supporters advocate repealing the nineteenth amendment.
c) A hundred or so Trump supporters advocate repealing the nineteenth amendment.
d) A hundred or so Trump supporters appear to advocate repealing the nineteenth amendment.
Each of these statements is true. However, (d) has the most qualifiers. At first, this statement seems inclusive of all three statements above it—that is, assuming (d) is true (a-c) must necessarily be true as well. But note the addition of ‘appear to’. This adds an element exclusive to (d).
The rest are, in ascending order, inclusive. That is, if © is true, so are (a) and (b).
Of course, there’s also the possibility that only a portion of those hundred or so Trump supporters are serious and the rest are joking. The question that @Abrax_23 seems to suggest is: which of these is not just the truth but the whole truth?
9 Likes
No, the initial response was someone disagreeing with it and blatantly saying I was wrong, then offering up extremely weak attempts to prove it.
Yeah, I know there were supporting tweets, I talked about them.
No, as I already explained I’ve been talking about the phenomenon as a whole the entire time. You seem to be talking about the BB article specifically, which in fact I never referenced directly.
Why does everything that you and others here find disagreeable have to be part of some kind covert “trolley” tactic? driving trollies implies deliberately trying to provoke anger in people, which frankly I never even expected as a result of just stating provable observations (which you even agreed with, so I still don’t know why you’re arguing.) There’s your “concern trolley” accusation, the “sea lioning” accusation (which I didn’t even know the meaning of until I googled it), the implication that I must be a Trump supporter, a misogynist… All just for stating observations that were later echoed by blatantly anti-Trump external publications. I see similar, but far more basic, accusations on sites like Infowars, where any “outsider” who comes along and challenges their nonsense is instantly labelled a “shill” or “paid trolley”. I guess it’s a symptom of tribalistic thinking. The one and only reason I decided to talk about this topic here is because this was the first story I encountered about it.
Again, yes people did disagree. That was exactly the argument I was initially having.
Again, as already stated, I was talking about the phenomenon itself and not the words of people commenting here. You keep hammering on this point that I’ve already told you I wasn’t even talking about. And I was not telling anyone to shut up.
I could ask you and others the same question. If it’s a “minor sideshow” then why the relentless attempts to argue about something that you even sort of agreed with. After a while, the topic itself almost becomes a sideline and watching the dynamics of tribalistic group-think is actually more interesting.
Yes, pretty much. I think it’s important, and also quite interesting from a detached perspective, to try and hone truth perception as sharply as possible, even when it doesn’t quite resonate with our own biases/preferences.
It doesn’t have to be, unless the behavior is self-evident. Alas, since denial that they are driving trollies is one of the classic behaviors of a concern trolley, the vehemence of your posts simply reinforces our certitude about the behavior, rather the same way that every time we see a black duck it reinforces our certitude that all swans are white (equivalently, that all non-white things are not swans).
the implication that I must be a Trump supporter, a misogynist.
Ah, but you see, if you admitted to being a Trump supporter then that would be prima facie evidence that you were not concern driving trollies.
Absent such an admission, your best bet is probably to mix things up by going to another thread, posting under a different moniker, and quoting Zizek instead of Baudrillard. And that’s the honest truth-perception.
1 Like
