What will happen at the Democratic Convention?

[acbytesla]

It's a tactic, very popular on the right at present. If Jihad Jane was attending politics discussions any longer, I credit her with being one of the first here to point it out and remind people of it.

To wit, if you can control the vocabulary, the language, and the tone of the debate, then you have taken control of the debate.

And actually, the exact opposite of ABP's position is taking hold, this is NOT helping Trump. He's trying to equate it to situations like when brain-dead morons caledl the POTUS a Mooslim Kenyan. Yes, that helped Obama because it was so patently full of ****. Smart conservatives were giving good advice when they tried to silence those idiots or distance themselves from them. It hurt the accusers and their associates far more than it hurt Obama, as we all know.

That is quite different from the down and dirty attacks on Trump. They're working. When the chorus of discussion on Trump is led by politicians getting in zingers, comedy writers building twenty minute monologues and skits on his latest buffoonery and the general public, including meek posters on an obscure internet forum, asking every second line, "Who is this *********** lunatic and what has the GOP come to that they could fall for this?"

Why would I, who actually find him to be a dangerous demagogue, tone it down? Treating him with any respect just elevates him from his position of guttersnipe. Why would we want him lifted to "respected opponent", e.g. say Adlai Stevenson meriting better treatment by the Kennedy brothers? Trump hasn't earned anyone's respect, and were I not a borderline pacifist, I'd actually say he merits someone punching him in his smirking visage but being that borderline pacifist, I'll settle for ripping him to shreds figuratively.

Try as I might, I couldn't have said it better. BRAVO!!

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Again.... tone-policing. It's not working. If you don't like my choice of words and euphemisms I suggest you put me on ignore.

Oh, do walk out in a huff please. That is such a compelling argument for... for what now?

It did make me laugh, thank you.

I share a common fondness for FDR with Tarpley and am interested to see what his new book is like.

It is hard to know what to say about this, after all the screeching and pulling your skirt up.

But censorship is a pretty hard argument to make for anything so I guess now that you are conceding the point you have transformed yourself into someone who knows Tarpley better than I do. You know Jones better than I do. You know everything better, professor, lol.

First it is something to be ashamed of, associating in any way with either Tarpley or Jones, and then you are the forum scholar on them both. This kind of dizziness is symptomatic of not having a coherent train of thought about the superiority of your candidate.

Because that is what you would do if you did. It does not portend well for Hillary Clinton.

 

[acbytesla]

Oh, do walk out in a huff please. That is such a compelling argument for... for what now?

It did make me laugh, thank you.



It is hard to know what to say about this, after all the screeching and pulling your skirt up.

But censorship is a pretty hard argument to make for anything so I guess now that you are conceding the point you have transformed yourself into someone who knows Tarpley better than I do. You know Jones better than I do. You know everything better, professor, lol.

First it is something to be ashamed of, associating in any way with either Tarpley or Jones, and then you are the forum scholar on them both. This kind of dizziness is symptomatic of not having a coherent train of thought about the superiority of your candidate.

Because that is what you would do if you did. It does not portend well for Hillary Clinton.

What the HELL are you talking about? I never saw anyone suggest that you shut up or censor you in any way. In fact, the opposite is true. It is you by saying that labeling a racist as a racist shouldn't be done is the real attempt at censorship.
As for his candidate, He and many others have offered ample reasons why Hillary makes a better choice to be President. That you have been deaf and blind to them is your issue.

 

[Travis]

I seriously question your knowledge of American History if you think significant change comes from people behaving themselves.

Who voted to get rid of slavery? It wasn't slaves and it wasn't angry people on the street. White senators were convinced, by other senators, to vote for the 13th amendment.

 

[acbytesla]

Who voted to get rid of slavery? It wasn't slaves and it wasn't angry people on the street. White senators were convinced, by other senators, to vote for the 13th amendment.

I've walked picket lines and was involved in a few sit-ins. I've been arrested 3 times for protesting nuclear weapons. But I have no illusions. Protests can only focus the spotlight on an issue. It NEVER EVER changes anything. Real effective protesters in the 60s and 70s knew that. Because they went beyond just staging a protest. The Civil Rights act of 1964 was not passed by the March on Washington or Selma. It was passed by courageous leaders in Washington. Many lost their seats because of that. What would have happened if MLK had refused to meet with JFK or LBJ?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Oh, do walk out in a huff please. That is such a compelling argument for... for what now?

It did make me laugh, thank you.



It is hard to know what to say about this, after all the screeching and pulling your skirt up.

But censorship is a pretty hard argument to make for anything so I guess now that you are conceding the point you have transformed yourself into someone who knows Tarpley better than I do. You know Jones better than I do. You know everything better, professor, lol.

First it is something to be ashamed of, associating in any way with either Tarpley or Jones, and then you are the forum scholar on them both. This kind of dizziness is symptomatic of not having a coherent train of thought about the superiority of your candidate.

Because that is what you would do if you did. It does not portend well for Hillary Clinton.

It's pretty apparent. I know most things better than you do, or at least the topics we're discussing here. You could've just conceded that earlier and saved us all this trouble.

Lest one have any difficulty discerning who's blowing smoke here, I am familiar with Tarpley because I am a rabid follower of the insanely paranoid, anti-Semitic, LaRouche cult. They are a fascinating study. You may not be aware of them or Tarpley's decades long association with them because he conveniently leaves that information off of his website bio page.

Tarpley is a noted conspiracy monger. Introducing him as a "historian" is not dissimilar to identifying Ted Bundy by his former career as a GOP Employee. Both of them actually have those items on their c.v., it's just that for both those are particularly unimportant details as to what they really made of themselves.

You're a guy on the internet. I'm a guy on the internet. Our credentials are the same until we start making claims. You claim you know of Tarpley as a historian. Which book, in particular? He hasn't written anything that isn't pure revisionist nonsense in thirty years.

You also didn't get my too-subtle question in a previous post. Let me reword it: Why would you claim to know more Russians than some poster in this thread? Is that all posters? You're the Donald Trump of Russian-knowers? "Believe me, I know Russians, I know all the Russians, I know the best Russians." It just struck me as a strange claim to make unless you're in the diplomatic corps or living in a place with large Russian minority.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Oh, do walk out in a huff please. That is such a compelling argument for... for what now?

It did make me laugh, thank you.



It is hard to know what to say about this, after all the screeching and pulling your skirt up.
But censorship is a pretty hard argument to make for anything so I guess now that you are conceding the point you have transformed yourself into someone who knows Tarpley better than I do. You know Jones better than I do. You know everything better, professor, lol.

First it is something to be ashamed of, associating in any way with either Tarpley or Jones, and then you are the forum scholar on them both. This kind of dizziness is symptomatic of not having a coherent train of thought about the superiority of your candidate.

Because that is what you would do if you did. It does not portend well for Hillary Clinton.

Hilited:

A. I was giving you a gracious out. You could now post "Yes, it is senseless to argue with you because you are so impolite and a meanie." You aren't very familiar with my posting if you think I'm backing down from this minor tussel.

B. Sorry if this lesson is a repeat from a previous thread, but I think it's handy to understand advanced rhetorical propaganda techniques. This, class, is known as gaslighting. When you are losing an argument or incapable of actually responding because you lack the knowledge or evidence, you accuse the other poster of being irrational, too emotional, mentally unstable, etc.... It's actually a nifty literary allusion to the film Gaslight, but there I go showing off actual knowledge, again.
It is a handy gambit with those unfamiliar with it because it can get inexperienced debaters to go into self-defense mode, getting more emotional and further distracting from the original topic.
Sometimes, though, it just doesn't work, eh?

 

[acbytesla]

Hilited:

A. I was giving you a gracious out. You could now post "Yes, it is senseless to argue with you because you are so impolite and a meanie." You aren't very familiar with my posting if you think I'm backing down from this minor tussel.

B. Sorry if this lesson is a repeat from a previous thread, but I think it's handy to understand advanced rhetorical propaganda techniques. This, class, is known as gaslighting. When you are losing an argument or incapable of actually responding because you lack the knowledge or evidence, you accuse the other poster of being irrational, too emotional, mentally unstable, etc.... It's actually a nifty literary allusion to the film Gaslight, but there I go showing off actual knowledge, again.
It is a handy gambit with those unfamiliar with it because it can get inexperienced debaters to go into self-defense mode, getting more emotional and further distracting from the original topic.
Sometimes, though, it just doesn't work, eh?

Maybe you can help me. I'm sure there is a term for this "posing" that Bush P keeps perpetrating. By "posing" I mean this pretending not to have any real interest in the outcome all the while his thumb is firmly pushing down one side of the scale. Any help in refreshing my memory is appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[Travis]

I've walked picket lines and was involved in a few sit-ins. I've been arrested 3 times for protesting nuclear weapons. But I have no illusions. Protests can only focus the spotlight on an issue. It NEVER EVER changes anything. Real effective protesters in the 60s and 70s knew that. Because they went beyond just staging a protest. The Civil Rights act of 1964 was not passed by the March on Washington or Selma. It was passed by courageous leaders in Washington. Many lost their seats because of that. What would have happened if MLK had refused to meet with JFK or LBJ?

Exactly. Refusing to work with the system is just a cop out and a recipe for inaction. I get that people want to posture as revolutionaries who are too cool to play by the rules but their ways will never accomplish anything outside of a calamity resetting society to Mad Max levels.

If the BOB's had been smart they would have taken what they gained in this election and used it to springboard into future elections. Instead they decided to scream, shout, pout and basically make everyone hate them.

 

[acbytesla]

Exactly. Refusing to work with the system is just a cop out and a recipe for inaction. I get that people want to posture as revolutionaries who are too cool to play by the rules but their ways will never accomplish anything outside of a calamity resetting society to Mad Max levels.

If the BOB's had been smart they would have taken what they gained in this election and used it to springboard into future elections. Instead they decided to scream, shout, pout and basically make everyone hate them.

What I really love about this election was the difference between Bernie Sanders and the BOBs and their behavior.

Bernie was the adult.
The BOBs were petulant children.

Their work for Bernie meant something. Their protest shows their willingness to throw it away. Bernie was not happy that it wasn't him being nominated, but instead of being petty, he rose above it. He wasn't about to throw his hard work away.

To me, the BOBs little stunts show the worst of both liberals and human beings.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Maybe you can help me. I'm sure there is a term for this "posing" that Bush P keeps perpetrating. By "posing" I mean this pretending not to have any real interest in the outcome all the while his thumb is firmly pushing down one side of the scale. Any help in refreshing my memory is appreciated.

Thanks.

Can't really say. I'll take him at his word... rugged individualist and independent thinker who just happens to favor the Orange Ruffian's personal style. I mean, because Donald's so polite and stuff and that's obviously important to ABP,.... that people he looks up to don't resort to name-calling.

There are libertarians and Libertarians, Greens, Democrat Socialists, Social Democrats, Socialists, Grangists, FoTL, Royalists, Loyalists, admirers of feudalism,.... once you get away from the big tent labels and down into the fringe, there's a party for just about every belief. I'd imagine his beliefs fit into some variation or hybrid of any number of those, or could yet be completely different.

But according to the rules of this playpen we're not really allowed to speculate if the poster chooses not to self-identify. We have to stick with the claim of "independent" but I believe we're allowed to comment that we fairly universally find the comments in his posts to certainly be concentrating far more on tearing down Clinton and supporting or at least "explaining" Donald Trump.

 

[Denver]

Perhaps he'd participate if someone told him they were a kind of game show.

No, that wouldn't work, he'd want to be the host so he can talk the most and have all the answers written down for him by other people.

I think both candidates will know this would probably get the biggest viewing audience of any show in history. In that sense, it's hard for either to refuse. It would be a tricky calculation to figure if backing out would be better than giving a bad performance. Considering the stakes and the visibility, I think that have to go through with it.

Still, it probably gives them a lot of leverage in getting the best terms and setting, especially with the fear that Trump might walk away if he doesn't like it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Who voted to get rid of slavery? It wasn't slaves and it wasn't angry people on the street. White senators were convinced, by other senators, to vote for the 13th amendment.

I dimly recall some other event having to happen first, to make abolition actually possible. I wonder what it was? Oh yeah, a gigantic civil war.

Sometimes you can't compromise your ideals in the name of pragmatism. They tried that, and it didn't work.

 

[acbytesla]

I dimly recall some other event having to happen first, to make abolition actually possible. I wonder what it was? Oh yeah, a gigantic civil war.

Sometimes you can't compromise your ideals in the name of pragmatism. They tried that, and it didn't work.

Whoa ...back the train up. Protesters didn't start the civil war. It was caused by politicians in both Southern States and the North. It was Southern State governments decisions to secede from the Union and then taking the practical action of attacking Fort Sumter.

The overall point is that protests have a place, but they are limited in effect as they have no power.

The Bernie or Bust protesters protest has no chance of bringing around real change except maybe causing a Donald Trump election which is clearly counter to any of the progress these people had worked so hard for.

It is a classic tantrum of children not adults working for the greater good. I was not only embarrassed for the party but the protesters themselves.

 

[acbytesla]

Can't really say. I'll take him at his word... rugged individualist and independent thinker who just happens to favor the Orange Ruffian's personal style. I mean, because Donald's so polite and stuff and that's obviously important to ABP,.... that people he looks up to don't resort to name-calling.

There are libertarians and Libertarians, Greens, Democrat Socialists, Social Democrats, Socialists, Grangists, FoTL, Royalists, Loyalists, admirers of feudalism,.... once you get away from the big tent labels and down into the fringe, there's a party for just about every belief. I'd imagine his beliefs fit into some variation or hybrid of any number of those, or could yet be completely different.

But according to the rules of this playpen we're not really allowed to speculate if the poster chooses not to self-identify. We have to stick with the claim of "independent" but I believe we're allowed to comment that we fairly universally find the comments in his posts to certainly be concentrating far more on tearing down Clinton and supporting or at least "explaining" Donald Trump.

I understand the rules of the playroom. The point isn't who the poster is, but the disingenuous nature of the posts themselves (not the poster) The propaganda tactic is one where the arguer pretends to rise above anything partisan and act almost professorial as an unbiased referee.

There must be a term for this particular type of propaganda. All I can think of is "posing". I'm sure there is a better term.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Whoa ...back the train up. Protesters didn't start the civil war.

I didn't say they did.

The overall point is that protests have a place, but they are limited in effect as they have no power.

They are a starting point, from which other events flow. If you don't have protests to start things, sometimes the changes never occur.

The Bernie or Bust protesters protest has no chance of bringing around real change except maybe causing a Donald Trump election which is clearly counter to any of the progress these people had worked so hard for.

Not who I was talking about.

It is a classic tantrum of children not adults working for the greater good. I was not only embarrassed for the party but the protesters themselves.

There is literally no protest movement, legitimate or not, that you can't characterize in that fashion if you wanted to. Evil people don't think they're doing evil, they think they're doing "the greater good". That's the problem.

 

[acbytesla]

There is literally no protest movement, legitimate or not, that you can't characterize in that fashion if you wanted to. Evil people don't think they're doing evil, they think they're doing "the greater good". That's the problem.

This is simply false. There is no other way of saying it. Portraying someone who is advancing the same goals as "evil"because they are compromising is a childish tantrum not goal oriented activism. It's like the tenant who protests his living conditions by burning down his dwelling.

Any activism that isnt about moving the needle forward is just entertainment.

 

[TragicMonkey]

This is simply false. There is no other way of saying it. Portraying someone who is advancing the same goals as "evil"because they are compromising is a childish tantrum not goal oriented activism. It's like the tenant who protests his living conditions by burning down his dwelling.

Any activism that isnt about moving the needle forward is just entertainment.

People said that about the civil rights movement. Why did they have to protest, and make a fuss, and cause a disturbance? Why couldn't they just be reasonable and accept compromise? Like separate but equal, what a wonderful compromise that was. How unreasonable and childish to object.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

There must be a term for this particular type of propaganda. All I can think of is "posing". I'm sure there is a better term.

"Tone policing" or "concern trolling," depending on the level of partisanship.

Unfortunately the SJW crowd is much enamoured of both terms and use them to mean, largely, "how dare you tell me I'm getting my panties in a bunch over nothing! J'accuse!" so if you employ them expect to be called a liberal labeler who labels too liberally in response.

 

[The_Animus]

I <3 posts by TragicMonkey and AlaskaBushPilot

Great stuff. Please never leave ISF!