Perhaps I've had a bit much to drink, but I'm genuinely worried that we're modding the poster a bit much guys. The meaningful disagreements are the guts of this site to me, and I fear that they're being lost to a pale conformity.

It was great when BBQkink returned to us, and then promptly engaged in lengthy disputes with Kyle (among others). There were real meaty discussions, details, and thought.

If I may assume for the sake of argument that BBQ sits a bit to the left on most issues, then why are we depriving ourselves of the opinion of someone who's off to the right?

'Oh he's scary far-right' I hear you say. Well, so the fuck what? We're grownups here, let's talk about the issues, not the person. And for god's sake let's not conspire to exclude someone because we don't share their ideas.

All I've seen is an informative headline (just gave us the important news) with an anodyne addendum from the news source (pro forma). The following quote seemed only to suggest that the guy has the intellectual capacity to ask interesting questions. We ought to welcome thoughtfulness in a guy who might have the launch codes, right? At the very least he's more coherent than the next President (a low bar, I'll grant you)

He's not being downmodded for being right wing, he's being downmodded because he's a troll trying to start shit.

One man's troll is another's provocateur...

He's still here, isn't he? ;)

Perhaps I've not seen the threads in which he's been an obvious troll (I don't check in here as much as I'd like to) but my experience of numbers' posts and comments reminds me of times I've put forward an unpopular viewpoint. Perhaps I'm projecting :)

There's a pattern. It starts with a (perhaps mildly defensive) exposition of an unpopular viewpoint, and once the downmods and rough remarks come in the tendency is to sardonic and disparaging remarks, and the whole thing soon deteriorates into name calling. I've done it myself many times when I've had my views eviscerated by Papango, Sanepride, Arrowhen, Arctan, or Kyle (to name but a few). One tends to feel cut to the quick, and it's all to easy to react badly. I couldn't count the times I've been caught up in such exchanges. I tend to frankness after about four beers, and if the responses come in fast enough then before I know it I'm 10 beers down, angry, and I've got to squint my eyes to make the letters on the keyboard come in to focus. The day after such exchanges I'm always reluctant to log back in to see what damage I've wrought.

What tends to sting though is the apparent assumption that I'm somehow morally deficient, so while the responses aren't generally ad hominem I find it hard not to take them personally. My responses therefore, tend to be defensive at best.

That's why I tend to sympathy with numbers' exchanges with you guys, and I'm pretty sure that he(?)'s a nice guy who happens to have ideas that differ from mine, and that's fine, and let's chat about it. Let's avoid this approach of screaming 'heresy!' and jumping straight to the ad hominem.

No. As someone that is here far more than anyone else, I'm fully aware of how many accounts he has and the variety of views he's purported to believe. I'm also fully aware of who he was on the old site and remember his behavior there. He's a troll looking to start shit. Don't feed the troll.

I used to think like you P.

I gave #s his chance and he promptly proved to be a poor excuse for a troll.

Yeah, I did too. He basically just CTRL+Vs in a few conservative talking points and then switches to generic insults when he runs out of those.

Arrowhen:

I don't recall the conversation you and I had where I just CTRL+Vs in a few conservative talking points and then switched to generic insults.

I'm sure you'll do us all the kindness of posting a link to that discussion.

Thanks in advance.

I’m sorry, but that link doesn’t lead to any conversation between Arrowhen and myself where I “just CTRL+Vs in a few conservative talking points and then switched to generic insults”. 

If you have something relevant. Post it. If not, stop wasting my time.

Thank you in advance.

It's the internet. Wasting time is all there is to do.

Go ahead, try to engage numbers in any kind of meaningful conversation and see how far you get.

On it

Pleaides: Interesting notion that of engaging differing viewpoints. If that’s the booze talking, I’d say drink up. But don’t look for a whole lot of that kind of diversity here. I suspect it’s as rare here as the other kind.

In any event, it was nice of you to offer an olive branch, if that’s what it was. In so much that it might have been, I urge you to judge for yourself whether I warrant the vitriol, not that it concerns me a wit. As for the “pale conformity” you speak of, all I can say is; Ya think?

Have a great weekend all.

As to the different viewpoints, that's my standard view whether drunk or otherwise. The drink just gives me the guts to inclination to speak up about it. It's been on my mind for a while. I agree that divergent views have become increasingly unwelcome here, and I mourn for their absence.

I'm glad that you saw my remarks as an olive branch, because that's precisely the spirit in which I made them. I don't think that you merit the vitriol you've received.

I disagree with you on most issues, and that's why I'm glad you're posting. Without your contribution we're just ramifying the balkanisation of political discourse. I'm not interested in echo chambers, and if we don't talk we'll fight.

I'm very fond of the post-1945 'New Peace' and the only way to keep it going is with conversation.

“I disagree with you on most issues / I'm not interested in echo chambers”

Ditto and ditto.

“Fond of the post-1945 'New Peace' and the only way to keep it going is with conversation.”

Exactly so.

Good chatting. Alas there is work to do.

Have a great weekend.

Although I doubt we could agree on the time of day while looking at the same clock. I'm glad to have #'s around. I have noticed he is commenting more and trying to be an ass less...but, the {religion & spirituality] was just him being an ass ad he deserved the downvotes.

He's commenting more hoping to catch a stray upmod so he can maintain enough karma to post.

See this is just one of those posts that could go under several categories. Since the most substantive of his remarks was about 'Political Islam' then the chosen category doesn't seem that far off the mark to me.

What seems to me to be extraordinary is your suggestion that the category selection is somehow indicative of an unspecified malicious motivation. Really?

Put yourself in numbers' head for a moment (for the sake of argument you understand.)

Picture yourself wringing your hands in evil delight, a wide-eyed 'Bond Villain' look in your eyes as you contemplate the majesty of your terrible scheme. 'Oh how they'll choke on their cornflakes' you crow, picturing the shattering consequences.

You *slightly misrepresent the content of a post on the interwebs*

Chaos. Markets plummet, civilizations fall, there are earthquakes, tidal waves kill millions. The few survivors marvel at the subtle genius of your plan.

You are satisfied, though your hands are sore due to excessive wringing.

Come on.

What seems to me to be extraordinary is your suggestion that the category selection is somehow indicative of an unspecified malicious motivation. Really?

this isn't even the first time he has done this this week...ya it was intentional and it was done to be an ass.

There's good reason for the head of the Defense Department to be a civilian.
Picking a career military guy like Mattis shows that Trump has little understanding and/or regard for this concept.

The one that made me quezzy was they said the 1/2 Governor from Alaska for VA...Still a little nervous that could ever be a possibility.

Although Donald Rumsfeld kind of screw that up, too.

oh fuck
wrong category
carry on

but my karma is to low to change the catagory

I LOVE THIS SITE

but my karma is to low to change the catagory

Clearly, we love you back.

groupthink is build right into the code

you'll all be very happy here

Says a supporter of Trump. The jokes just write themselves, and you post them for us.

Oh, boo hoo someone doesn't like that community sets it's own standards. Please feel free to direct all complains to saint_marck@aol.com.

Otherwise, you knew the game when you signed up. And before you decry censorship, please realize your post is still on the front page where anyone can see if if they so desire.

Take it to Reddit... oh wait, they have a mod system.

Take it slashdot... oh wait, them too...

4chan?

Clearly this website is rigged.

Millions of people illegally downvoted.

I heard they are able to do that by registering multiple fake accounts with numbers for names.

I don't care about the category, I just downmodded because I don't like you.

I mean, I know you're supposed to mod the post and not the poster, but I only apply that rule to people I like.

Which is everyone but you.

Groupthink?! How dare you.

What they said
v

Groupthink?! How dare you.

What they said
v

Actually, I kinda think you are spot on with this one.

The pull quote seems unrelated to the position, unless it was meant to be critical. Was there a point to be made?

As with most of his posts, just look for the mention of islam, Muslims, or any nation/group associated with them. That seems to be his go-to boogeyman.

Odd, since this is the only clear mention I noticed in the piece. "Similarly, Mattis’s emphasis on partnerships with Muslim nations in the Middle East places him at odds with the Trump camp’s willingness to denounce Islam as synonymous with terrorism. Mattis has instead said terrorists hide behind “false religious garb”."

And the text he posted about the article itself below the quoted text.

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Trump's not referring to him by name to his rally last night, but instead calling him 'mad dog' should raise alarm bells about Trump's childishly dangerous view of how the military works. That and his many two minute hates for Hillary and the media. He's also now calling losing the popular vote winning by a landslide.

Couldn't help but be a chilled by the 'victory rally', both the concept and execution directly contradicted his initial conciliatory tone just after the election. Do he or his advisors have any idea how this looks to the millions who are terrified of his being President? I'm still hoping that Trump's bluster and petulance are really part of his 'act' for the sake of his craven fan base, that in reality he's more contemplative and introspective. Unfortunately I fear this is delusional. I'm still half-expecting to wake up from this creeping nightmare.

"Contemplative and introspective" were never on the table. He's a bully and responds like one.

Given his history of slapping his name on things and then being the only one to come out ahead because he left everyone else to hang doesn't bode well, either.

He even glossed over the fact that he's putting crony billionaire vulture capitalists in his cabinet saying "they made money." Even after that bullshit fig leaf, his cult chanted "drain the swamp" with no sense of irony.

Am I still supposed to have empathy for these people? How does one have empathy for a zealot that can't even tell when they're being conned? I can feel sorry for them, but it's more because I'm feeling sorry for every American at this point.

Everyone so far is either a billionaire or a general.

I still go back to this.

Richard Engel, NBC News chief foreign correspondent, talks with Rachel Maddow about lessons learned from when other countries have elected an authoritarian and how to recognize signs of eroding democracy. Duration: 8:21

Engel's part starts @ 3:27

Bored over on The_Donald huh numbers?

There's no one to hold a discussion with over there. It's like joining the Scientologists to enjoy debates about the latest psychological trends.

I didnt think #s was actually interested in holding discussions

Well, by "discussion" I mean "posting something ludicrous to get a response other than 'MAGA' and 'liberal cucks' and so forth."

This is the most reasonable cabinet person he has had yet. This guy is smart and capable. He is more hawkish then I would prefer but if Obama or Clinton had chosen him I wouldn't have batted an eye.

"Most reasonable." That's "shortest midget in the circus" territory, especially since he needs a waiver from Congress to bypass one of the qualifications.

World's tallest midget still takes the record but yeah. It is still trump being trump

Reality and facts still no barrier to team Trump.

President-elect Donald Trump’s team is advising Senate Republicans to promote Jeff Sessions’ deep familiarity with the Justice Department, his “strong civil rights record” and that he is “known for his deep respect and adherence to the rule of law” as senators talk about the his nomination as attorney general. […]

“Even individuals who voted against Sen. Sessions’ confirmation 30 years ago ultimately regretted it,” the talking points added.

Team Trump touts Sessions’ ‘strong civil rights record’