Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[crimson5pheonix]

Meanwhile, who remembers the Lincoln Project?

Lincoln Project Founder Says Tucker Carlson is GOP 2024 Frontrunner

"I think that Tucker Carlson is the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2024," Lincoln Project co-founder Steve Schmidt said on Friday.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Well, thanks for the troll, bro

No it's not trolling to hold you to the conventions of an argument. It's more trolling that you seem to expect me to be doing the work when you apparently can't argue your own side.

If you don't want your claims dismissed without evidence. Don't make them without evidence then ask me why I'm not disproving God.

 

[Cheetodust]

bah, you people beat me to it

But here is the take of one Mr. Morello

And I thought their misunderstanding of Bruce Springsteen lyrics was depressing.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

And I thought their misunderstanding of Bruce Springsteen lyrics was depressing.

As a white person I feel perfectly comfortable saying "fuck we have no rhythm."

 

[KuzunohaXXII]

I could, if I were on twitter at present and if I could / would even get a reply.

You are the one asserting they might have presented nuanced positions. I was the one claiming they were just calling her a terf not disputing her points.

If I'm wrong and they have addressed her points then feel free to present evidence the people I picked out calling her a terf have addressed her actual positions.

I showed my claims. You claim they may have addressed what she said? Ok them prove it. It's not my job to make your case for you.

Oh man, your arguments that I came across last night were so hilariously awful I had to resurrect my long-dead Escapist account and wait for my approval just to respond, good lord.

There's no actual examination of her points etc it's just "J.K. Rowling is a terf"

I mean... Seriously dude? Are you really complaining that people aren't writing essays on Twitter?

Really dude?... Twitter? Seriously? Twitter? Fucking... TWITTER?

Yeah, no shit you're not going to find lengthy, point-by-point, well-researched posts providing intricate breakdowns, investigations, arguments, discussion, and analysis. Because it's fucking Twitter. Twitter's a place for people to spew out whatever random thought they have in their head at the time when they're not sharing memes and links.

"You think JK Rowling's a terf? Y-yeah, w-well... H-here's a handful of completely random tweets from a bunch of nobodies that aren't essays! That proves nobody in the history of ever has actually discussed her points! Take that!"

C'mon dude... You can't be serious.

Twitter is a platform for people to brainfart on a whim. Of course 99.99% of Tweets are going to be tiny little soundbits. Do you not understand how Twitter works? That's why Trunkage gave you samples from of discussion from a media where people actually can go in depth with analysis, but you rejected those outright. I guess because you'll only accept examinations if they're specifically posted on a medium not designed for such things?

Also yeah I guess not everyone has written an in-depth essay dissecting JK Rowling's points, but a good chunk of people have. I'm just curious though, what exactly is the threshold you're asking for? Can you give me an exact number of in-depth essays that need to be in existence for you to be satisfied? Also why are you so worried about quantity when quality is so much more important? If a handful of people make really good points, isn't that good enough? Do you really need a whole bunch more people just restating those points? What would that even add?

I'm sure if people had an actual conversation with J.K. Rowling...

Sweet, give me her phone number then, I'll get right on it

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Oh man, your arguments that I came across last night were so hilariously awful I had to resurrect my long-dead Escapist account and wait for my approval just to respond, good lord.



I mean... Seriously dude? Are you really complaining that people aren't writing essays on Twitter?

Really dude?... Twitter? Seriously? Twitter? Fucking... TWITTER?

Yeah, no shit you're not going to find lengthy, point-by-point, well-researched posts providing intricate breakdowns, investigations, arguments, discussion, and analysis. Because it's fucking Twitter. Twitter's a place for people to spew out whatever random thought they have in their head at the time when they're not sharing memes and links.

"You think JK Rowling's a terf? Y-yeah, w-well... H-here's a handful of completely random tweets from a bunch of nobodies that aren't essays! That proves nobody in the history of ever has actually discussed her points! Take that!"

C'mon dude... You can't be serious.

Twitter is a platform for people to brainfart on a whim. Of course 99.99% of Tweets are going to be tiny little soundbits. Do you not understand how Twitter works? That's why Trunkage gave you samples from of discussion from a media where people actually can go in depth with analysis, but you rejected those outright. I guess because you'll only accept examinations if they're specifically posted on a medium not designed for such things?

Also yeah I guess not everyone has written an in-depth essay dissecting JK Rowling's points, but a good chunk of people have. I'm just curious though, what exactly is the threshold you're asking for? Can you give me an exact number of in-depth essays that need to be in existence for you to be satisfied? Also why are you so worried about quantity when quality is so much more important? If a handful of people make really good points, isn't that good enough? Do you really need a whole bunch more people just restating those points? What would that even add?



Sweet, give me her phone number then, I'll get right on it

To add to the whole absurdity of it too, every time I say something like "Trump is racist" or "JK is a terf" I have no inclination to break down my reasons and prove to any bystander why I believe so. Sometimes you just say things you believe without having some absurd break away moment to provide a list of reasons every time you say it in case someone's watching. That's really not how normal humans operate

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Oh man, your arguments that I came across last night were so hilariously awful I had to resurrect my long-dead Escapist account and wait for my approval just to respond, good lord.



I mean... Seriously dude? Are you really complaining that people aren't writing essays on Twitter?

No I'm complaining about the general approach happening to discourse where emotive language is replacing actual discourse

Really dude?... Twitter? Seriously? Twitter? Fucking... TWITTER?

And?

So we should just go with anything goes rules?

Yeah, no shit you're not going to find lengthy, point-by-point, well-researched posts providing intricate breakdowns, investigations, arguments, discussion, and analysis. Because it's fucking Twitter. Twitter's a place for people to spew out whatever random thought they have in their head at the time when they're not sharing memes and links.

Which suggest twitter exists just for political point scoring and dunks to attack those you dislike with the most blindly flailing yet emotive expression you can.

"You think JK Rowling's a terf? Y-yeah, w-well... H-here's a handful of completely random tweets from a bunch of nobodies that aren't essays! That proves nobody in the history of ever has actually discussed her points! Take that!"

Not what I said try again and this time try comprehending my point will you?

C'mon dude... You can't be serious.

Twitter is a platform for people to brainfart on a whim. Of course 99.99% of Tweets are going to be tiny little soundbits. Do you not understand how Twitter works? That's why Trunkage gave you samples from of discussion from a media where people actually can go in depth with analysis, but you rejected those outright. I guess because you'll only accept examinations if they're specifically posted on a medium not designed for such things?

And yet the argument is over just throwing words around to label people as something bad in place of just insulting people.

I rejected them because the argument was over the amount of discourse relating to J.K. Rowling that started and ended with trying to throw a label on her to get an emotive reaction.

Also yeah I guess not everyone has written an in-depth essay dissecting JK Rowling's points, but a good chunk of people have.

Define a good chuck? because those ones I pointed to haven't.

Jim Sterling hasn't

The 100s of others saying it likely haven't.

The people even turning up in some of her mentions likely haven't.

I'm just curious though, what exactly is the threshold you're asking for? Can you give me an exact number of in-depth essays that need to be in existence for you to be satisfied?

Lets say more than 30% of those throwing out the claim she's a Terf that would be a statistically significant amount.

Also why are you so worried about quantity when quality is so much more important? If a handful of people make really good points, isn't that good enough? Do you really need a whole bunch more people just restating those points? What would that even add?

Because quantity can quickly overwhelm quality in discourse. Because I'm literally arguing about the trend of people choosing more to throw emotive terms at people and insult and shame rather than try to engage in any real discussion of points etc. Hell there's no evidence most of the ones I found out even know the points of discussion. I'm sure I saw some stuff talking to people protesting a Jordan Peterson talk and they asked one guy why he was there and the guy replies "Jordan Peterson is promoting white supremacy and helping recruit for neo-nazi groups" or something like that. He was then asked "Have you ever listened to anything Jordan Peterson has done media wise" and the guy goes "Nah but my friend told me he supports nazis so I'm out here to protest". It's becoming blind tribalism and going back to my literal main argument

IT'S NOT FUCKING GOOD FOR ANYONE IF PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO CHANGE SHIT.

How Hatred Came To Dominate American Politics

To anyone following American politics, it’s not exactly news that Democrats and Republicans don’t like each other. Take what happened in the presidential debate…

fivethirtyeight.com

Sweet, give me her phone number then, I'll get right on it

Just tweet at her, not like she's been driven off twitter yet.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

To add to the whole absurdity of it too, every time I say something like "Trump is racist" or "JK is a terf" I have no inclination to break down my reasons and prove to any bystander why I believe so. Sometimes you just say things you believe without having some absurd break away moment to provide a list of reasons every time you say it in case someone's watching. That's really not how normal humans operate

Ok I believe you're a sheep shagger.

I don't have to justify it right?

The reason for justification especially when you're trying to convince people.......... Which again part of this whole argument started has been about. Is to actually justify the position rather than hoping a they'll just fall in line.

 

[KuzunohaXXII]

No I'm complaining about the general approach happening to discourse where emotive language is replacing actual discourse

Yeah, complaining about people not writing academic essays on Twitter, like I said.

And?

So we should just go with anything goes rules?

"Ban all tweets that aren't thoughtful and engaging essays!"

Which suggest twitter exists just for political point scoring and dunks to attack those you dislike with the most blindly flailing yet emotive expression you can.

Yeah, basically. So, y'know, maybe if you're looking for actual arguments and discussion... Don't look there?

And don't be surprised when people use other mediums to provide examples of discussion and analysis?

And maybe don't be surprised that <500-character-count 20-second brainfarts outnumber the amount of 40-minute-long structured and researched video essays with a degree of production value by massive margins? Seriously lol c'mon

Not what I said try again and this time try comprehending my point will you?

That not everything everyone says on the internet is going to be a well-structured, thoughtful, educational piece?

Congratulations detective, you cracked the case. You did it.

And yet the argument is over just throwing words around to label people as something bad in place of just insulting people.

I rejected them because the argument was over the amount of discourse relating to J.K. Rowling that started and ended with trying to throw a label on her to get an emotive reaction.

And again I say:

And maybe don't be surprised that <280-character-count 20-second brainfarts outnumber the amount of 40-minute-long structured and researched video essays with a degree of production value by massive margins?

Or rather, I guess, don't be so surprised that Twitter is... Twitter. Like, congratulations, you're the last person on Earth to realize that the majority of tweets aren't insightful. Good job?

Define a good chuck?

I'unno. You tell me how many you need to see to be satisfied.

because those ones I pointed to haven't.

... Damn, you really are the last person on Earth to discover that the majority of tweets aren't insightful aren't you?

maybetrylookingelsewherebesidestwitteronamediawherepeoplecanactuallycreatecontentlongenoughtobeinsightfulandresearchedidunnojustathoughtimjustsaying

Jim Sterling hasn't

Oh shit, Jim Sterling hasn't. Well damn, guess that means nobody else possibly could have either. Welp, there goes my argument. Fuck my drag, right?

The 100s of others saying it likely haven't.

The people even turning up in some of her mentions likely haven't.

Lets say more than 30% of those throwing out the claim she's a Terf that would be a statistically significant amount.

Quaaaaalityyyyyyy~

Over quantityyyyyyy~

Again, yeah, no shit. You're not helping your case here, you're just further proving that you're literally complaining that not everything everyone says on Twitter is in an academic essay format.

Because quantity can quickly overwhelm quality in discourse. Because I'm literally arguing about the trend of people choosing more to throw emotive terms at people and insult and shame rather than try to engage in any real discussion of points etc. Hell there's no evidence most of the ones I found out even know the points of discussion. I'm sure I saw some stuff talking to people protesting a Jordan Peterson talk and they asked one guy why he was there and the guy replies "Jordan Peterson is promoting white supremacy and helping recruit for neo-nazi groups" or something like that. He was then asked "Have you ever listened to anything Jordan Peterson has done media wise" and the guy goes "Nah but my friend told me he supports nazis so I'm out here to protest". It's becoming blind tribalism and going back to my literal main argument

IT'S NOT FUCKING GOOD FOR ANYONE IF PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO CHANGE SHIT.

Man, your... waaaaaaay over-inflated expectations of Twitter are one thing, but your expectations of everyone to be able to drop perfect citations and well-rounded statements on a whim, even during high-emotional events like a protest, are another. Look, I'm all for well-rounded rhetoric. In fact I'm a huge advocate for the improvement of leftist rhetoric, and I'm glad that it's been improving as of late. But, we can't all be Contrapoints. We can't all be Vaush. We can't all be well-seasoned debate bros, and the truth is most of us won't be, nor can the best of us even be that 100% of the time in every single interaction we have or statement that we make.

Not only that, but not every single medium is an appropriate or adequate place to do such either. Twitter is not a place of thoughtful discussion and debate, it is not a Socratic forum. Not even just because of the people, but because it was literally not built to be such a place. 280 characters is barely enough space to get a well thought out, researched, evidence-driven statement. Sure you can like, make a thread of multiple 280-character posts but like... Those are so awkward to read. Responses end up all over the place because each post can have its own threads, and... It's just a mess. 1/10 would not recommend.

So look, I'm with you on people having better arguments. But there's a time and place for everything. A protest, where emotions are high, isn't a good time. And Twitter just isn't a good place. And expecting every... single... person... who ever says anything, on the internet, to only do so if it's 100% thoughtful, insightful, well-researched and cited, like... I dunno what to tell you, other than say that's one hell of a utopian pipe dream.

That's okay though. Your utopian pipe dream is valid .

Just tweet at her, not like she's been driven off twitter yet.

Well, maybe if I sacrifice enough sheep to Beelzebub, he'll finally grant unto me the luck I'd need for her social media manager to come across my tweet and decide "Yes, this IS the one! I must show it to her!"

By the way, I also want to point out that the whole discussion thing goes both ways. I haven't seen a single shred of evidence that JK Rowling herself has any desire or intention to actually have a debate or discussion with anyone either, especially not with anyone that doesn't already agree with her. So... Yeah...

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Kodu, people saying it in passing aren't there to cater to your ego and explain things to you as if you're the center of the world. They're probably not trying to convince you of anything. No one expects you to fall in line, you'll go nutjob on as you have for the past years. The message probably isn't for you.

Your example is just you being a shit person and insulting me as if that compared at all

 

[Trunkage]

No it's not trolling to hold you to the conventions of an argument. It's more trolling that you seem to expect me to be doing the work when you apparently can't argue your own side.

If you don't want your claims dismissed without evidence. Don't make them without evidence then ask me why I'm not disproving God.

When you are acting exactly like the people you apparently dislike, your either projecting or trolling. I picked the latter because I thought it was nicer

When YOU starting do the things you say everyone else should doing, maybe you've got a leg to stand on. Right now, you are a person who hates himself. And probably doesn't realise it

Eg.

Ok I believe you're a sheep shagger.

I don't have to justify it right?

You said a whole bunch of people are liars and making shit up.

Without justification. Well... justification you made up about them.

But hey. We're just going to hear about how terrible and bad everyone is next right?

 

[Trunkage]

Snip

You know what the worst part is. A whole bunch of people spent an inordinate amount of time painstakingly taking Rowling through why they thought she was wrong.

If Dwarvenhobble did even a cursor amount of research on this he would find this out.

 

[Seanchaidh]

In a change of pace, The Onion reporting something that should be real news, rather than something that is real news but shouldn't be.

 

[Chimpzy]

Responding with yt clips is lazy, I know, but it's about the level of effort whatever that is is worth

 

[Agema]

Rupert Murdoch-owned US outlets turn on Trump, urging him to act with 'grace'

Fox News, Wall Street Journal and New York Post all show stark change of tone as their former champion faces ‘presidential endgame’

www.theguardian.com

Here's the start of Trump's fall from grace.

Watch all his enablers turn their backs on him now that he's almost certainly lost. There goes Rupert Murdoch. I'm willing to bet all those political one-time suck-ups like Lindsey Graham won't be taking his calls, either. Without power, Trump's right back to 2015 where he's nothing but a grotesque buffoon.

 

[Trunkage]

In a change of pace, The Onion reporting something that should be real news, rather than something that is real news but shouldn't be.

I thought the Onion was meant to be a parody

 

[thebobmaster]

Rupert Murdoch-owned US outlets turn on Trump, urging him to act with 'grace'

Fox News, Wall Street Journal and New York Post all show stark change of tone as their former champion faces ‘presidential endgame’

www.theguardian.com

Here's the start of Trump's fall from grace.

Watch all his enablers turn their backs on him now that he's almost certainly lost. There goes Rupert Murdoch. I'm willing to bet all those political one-time suck-ups like Lindsey Graham won't be taking his calls, either. Without power, Trump's right back to 2015 where he's nothing but a grotesque buffoon.

It's even worse than that for Trump. Deutsche Bank, one of his primary lenders, has indicated that they intend on going after him for the $340 million debt he owes them, as well as looking at ways to disassociate with him entirely.

Deutsche Bank plans to cut ties with Trump after the election and could seize his assets if he can't pay back his debts, Reuters reports

The German lender is seeking to dump millions of dollars of Trump debt and sees a Trump loss as its best exit strategy, officials told Reuters.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Yeah, complaining about people not writing academic essays on Twitter, like I said.

No try again and this time try and spend some time understanding it.

"Ban all tweets that aren't thoughtful and engaging essays!"

Are you really struggling this much to understand what I was arguing?

Yeah, basically. So, y'know, maybe if you're looking for actual arguments and discussion... Don't look there?

Ok you really are struggling this much..................I don't think I can actually explain this any more simply without just being outright insulting to you.

And don't be surprised when people use other mediums to provide examples of discussion and analysis?

Which when the argument is about the cult like nature of just blind shaming only works if the examples are of the people I used as examples of just shaming otherwise it's two different groups. The group existing discussing the thing on youtube doesn't suddenly mean the far larger group just constantly calling her a TERF doesn't exist.

And maybe don't be surprised that <500-character-count 20-second brainfarts outnumber the amount of 40-minute-long structured and researched video essays with a degree of production value by massive margins? Seriously lol c'mon

So you're in favour of just throwing emotionally weighted terms round like confetti?

That not everything everyone says on the internet is going to be a well-structured, thoughtful, educational piece?

Congratulations detective, you cracked the case. You did it.

No it won't be.
but it also shouldn't just be a flailing attempt to paint a person as a monster so you can pretend to be some mighty hero fighting them.

And again I say:

And maybe don't be surprised that <280-character-count 20-second brainfarts outnumber the amount of 40-minute-long structured and researched video essays with a degree of production value by massive margins?

Or rather, I guess, don't be so surprised that Twitter is... Twitter. Like, congratulations, you're the last person on Earth to realize that the majority of tweets aren't insightful. Good job?

yeh they also didn't used to be the levels of Tumblr drama mongers accusing one another of being fascists but it's getting that way.

I'unno. You tell me how many you need to see to be satisfied.

I did 30%

... Damn, you really are the last person on Earth to discover that the majority of tweets aren't insightful aren't you?

You really don't get the point I'm making do you?

maybetrylookingelsewherebesidestwitteronamediawherepeoplecanactuallycreatecontentlongenoughtobeinsightfulandresearchedidunnojustathoughtimjustsaying



Oh shit, Jim Sterling hasn't. Well damn, guess that means nobody else possibly could have either. Welp, there goes my argument. Fuck my drag, right?

And every other fucker I used as an example but hey ignore them right? Like you're seeming ignoring the point I've been making....................

Quaaaaalityyyyyyy~

Over quantityyyyyyy~

Again, yeah, no shit. You're not helping your case here, you're just further proving that you're literally complaining that not everything everyone says on Twitter is in an academic essay format.

No I'm arguing noise to signal.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Man, your... waaaaaaay over-inflated expectations of Twitter are one thing, but your expectations of everyone to be able to drop perfect citations and well-rounded statements on a whim, even during high-emotional events like a protest, are another. Look, I'm all for well-rounded rhetoric. In fact I'm a huge advocate for the improvement of leftist rhetoric, and I'm glad that it's been improving as of late. But, we can't all be Contrapoints. We can't all be Vaush. We can't all be well-seasoned debate bros, and the truth is most of us won't be, nor can the best of us even be that 100% of the time in every single interaction we have or statement that we make.

Not only that, but not every single medium is an appropriate or adequate place to do such either. Twitter is not a place of thoughtful discussion and debate, it is not a Socratic forum. Not even just because of the people, but because it was literally not built to be such a place. 280 characters is barely enough space to get a well thought out, researched, evidence-driven statement. Sure you can like, make a thread of multiple 280-character posts but like... Those are so awkward to read. Responses end up all over the place because each post can have its own threads, and... It's just a mess. 1/10 would not recommend.

So look, I'm with you on people having better arguments. But there's a time and place for everything. A protest, where emotions are high, isn't a good time. And Twitter just isn't a good place. And expecting every... single... person... who ever says anything, on the internet, to only do so if it's 100% thoughtful, insightful, well-researched and cited, like... I dunno what to tell you, other than say that's one hell of a utopian pipe dream.

That's okay though. Your utopian pipe dream is valid .

Jesus fucking Christ..........................So you're in support of just throwing whatever accusations you like against anyone just because it will be cathartic and make you feel better and to suggest otherwise is so terrible. How dare people not be able to throw any insult they want. But I bet the moment you ended up being insulted it would be an outrage in your view.

"We PROTESTING our right to falsely accuse people of whatever crime we want, not our fault if people believe us and go after them."

Well, maybe if I sacrifice enough sheep to Beelzebub, he'll finally grant unto me the luck I'd need for her social media manager to come across my tweet and decide "Yes, this IS the one! I must show it to her!"

By the way, I also want to point out that the whole discussion thing goes both ways. I haven't seen a single shred of evidence that JK Rowling herself has any desire or intention to actually have a debate or discussion with anyone either, especially not with anyone that doesn't already agree with her. So... Yeah...

Maybe because she's kind of already stated most of her positions. Have you actually read them?

Why am I asking, of course you've probably not.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Kodu, people saying it in passing aren't there to cater to your ego and explain things to you as if you're the center of the world. They're probably not trying to convince you of anything. No one expects you to fall in line, you'll go nutjob on as you have for the past years. The message probably isn't for you.

Your example is just you being a shit person and insulting me as if that compared at all

and this argument is about how it's not a great way to persuade people of things to just yell "But they are [insert ist or ism here]" in a world where the use of those terms is becoming ever more broad.

Some of those messages were just replies to other people. Yes the messages weren't replies to me, they were in the case of some of the examples I gave replies to others.

When you are acting exactly like the people you apparently dislike, your either projecting or trolling. I picked the latter because I thought it was nicer

Except if I were doing that I'd be calling all said people ignorant morons without having spent the past however many messages outlining how they seemingly are just throwing the term out there not addressing her actual points.

When YOU starting do the things you say everyone else should doing, maybe you've got a leg to stand on. Right now, you are a person who hates himself. And probably doesn't realise it

Did you miss the fact I did lay out an explanation and have been because it's no longer a nice quick soundbite?

Eg.


You said a whole bunch of people are liars and making shit up.

1) Not what I said.
2) Under your rules of arguments if you want to claim they aren't liar you have to prove they aren't that.

Without justification. Well... justification you made up about them.

But hey. We're just going to hear about how terrible and bad everyone is next right?

Oh you already said I don't need justification you're the one who has to prove I'm justified or aren't you willing to abide by the rules you wished me to argue under.