”Go back and read Red's initial post and then Larry's dismissive response and the ones that followed.”
Since when am I obligated to respond to Red?
Since when am I obligated to respond to Ham/Uno/Utley?
How am I stifling Maher’s speech by deciding I’m not going to watch his show?
I told everyone why I don’t give a shit what Maher has to say so I have to hear “Oh, you think your people had it bad?”
To “your don’t say anything of value...” if nothing I say has weight or value why do you insist I engage in a discussion over what Maher had to say?
This is becoming a pattern. Ham who has been nothing but an asshole DEMANDS I answer his queries.
I tell him to go screw and here comes Banks to insist I engage with a fucking racist asshole.
Why is that, Jenna? Huh? Come on Jenna, tell me why I have to give Utley the time of day.
Elba
These (the bolded and enlarged above) are examples of a strawman argument.
Larry's response to his labeling Maher a "pot-smoking white privileged libertarian", rather than addressing the content of what Maher said as presented by Red's post, now has led to a series on strawmen that he proceeds to knock down.
No one said Larry had to do anything, but he chose to take Red's posts about Maher and turn it into a personal attack on Maher.
Now he complains that someone took issue with his response that no one forced him to make.
How then "stifled?"
A QnD answer is
I did not suggest Maher's opinion was deleted or banned, which is another strawman, but rather, Maher's point as presented by Red's post, was stifled by a libertarian pillow thrown on it, making it less able to breathe on its own.
It was dismissed by several posters and not discussed largely due to Maher's being labeled a pot-smoking white-privved, lib, yada X3.
I could use Larry's pre-screened stifle approach to answering questions with anyone.
its easy
link 3 damning insults which appeal to the crowd and avoid the issue= STIFLED
Hope that helps Polaris.
But it wasn't stifled.
No matter how much you say it was.
You're just wrong, Banks. You and everybody else continue to be able to discuss Maher's comments to your heart's content.
It's not discussed by many of us because we don't see anything worth discussing in it. Pretty much the same as we do with anything we don't think worth discussing.
You've been engaged in that same approach for as long as I've known you, but I am sure that (until now?) you would never have claimed you were stifling anybody.
Despite your occasional claims to have stifled Ham.
I generally attack the message first and then after shit gets dumped on me, respond in kind.
You strawmanned my response by saying Maher's comments were not banned or deleted.
It was a bullshit evasion of my point.
That you disagree with me, so the fuck what?
Larry's comments stifled, took the air out, deflected, whatever,
Are you a fucking moron?
That's rhetorical.
You are St Josh Self-appointed self righteous social justice of the oh so woke council of Elba.
As for calling out Utley, I've done that more than you could ever hope to, one on one, and earned my stripes, without the protection of a delete or ban button.
He's not an angel, he's more devil, and crosses lines, far into darkness, and I was the first person here to tell him to stop his racist trolling attacks on Larry.
And then Elba took my lead.
So go fuck yourself if you're implying that I have to take a certain position on all Utley posts to pass Elba muster.
Seriously Josh go fuck yourself.