Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[Hairy Lime]

”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, it was Larry's decision not to engage with Red's post. A decision made by many of us, for.reasons that should be pretty obvious to anyone familiar with Red. And apparently less obvious to anyone who read what Maher said and recognized it for the strawman, built on a false premise. Why engage? Especially when taken up by the racist troll you are rubbing elbows with.

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.

LMAO

But you are not engaging with his post's assertion that he does not want to e gage with Maher or Red, you are criticizing him for not engaging with Maher or Red and trying to make him do so. I, for one, have also chosen not to e gage with Maher, Red or Ham on this issue, because I have no respect for their opinions no respect for the intellectual honesty of Red or Ham, and see the false premises of Maher's argument.

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.

I lost track of the nestled.quote boxes. I have never understood why people stating their own opinions equate with stifling argument. You are free to argue in support of Maher any time you want. Just as I am free to not do so, and state why.

[Hairy Lime]

My N key is apparently broke .

[Yankguy1]

That you still don't understand what a strawman is doesn't surprise me.    But thank God you no longer feel compelled to call Bankshot a child molester.

Clearly, because banks has joined his anti Larry cabal.

Nope I just thought Utley asked a legit on topic question.

"You say 'legit on topic question'.  I say 'trolling and race-baiting'." (sung to the tune of "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off").

[Hairy Lime]

That you still don't understand what a strawman is doesn't surprise me.    But thank God you no longer feel compelled to call Bankshot a child molester.

Clearly, because banks has joined his anti Larry cabal.

Nope I just thought Utley asked a legit on topic question.

Not my point, which was not targeted at you. And so far a whole bunch of us here don't think it is a legit topic because the argument proceeds from a false premise. And, was posited here by posters that have a history.

[LarryBnDC]

”After stoking fear of a Black uprising that would upend their way of life, endanger their women and bring about an unfathomable new American reality in which Black men—not white—governed, white city leaders pledged to “choke the current of the Cape Fear with carcasses” rather than allow Wilmington’s Black citizens to succeed, and lead.

When the carnage ended, more than 100 Black government officials—city councilmen, the city clerk, the treasurer, the city attorney and others—had been forced from their elected roles. Somewhere between 60 and 250 Black citizens were murdered.”


https://www.history.com/news/wilmington-massacre-1898-coup


On January 6, 2021 thousands of white supremacists stormed the US Capitol to ‘Stop the Steal’ for their anger was directed at the votes of BIPOC folks whose coalition provided the winning margins in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia.

If the insurrection had been successful the US government line of succession would have been decapitated and executive power would have remained with defeated president.

If that doesn’t tell where this nation is in terms of “progress” you’re either delusional, intellectually dishonest or stupid.

Achtung, motherfuckers!

If you feel the need to be patted on your back for ‘how far we’ve come’ then reach up and do it yourself.

”I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice” [...]

Martin Luther King - 1963

History.com. from the same company who brings you "American Pickers" and "Pawn Stars".

From NPR

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/04/953286955/race-and-the-capitol-riot-an-american-story-weve-heard-before

By the way;

I like ‘American Pickers.’

[bankshot1]

”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.

[Hamilton Samuels]

”After stoking fear of a Black uprising that would upend their way of life, endanger their women and bring about an unfathomable new American reality in which Black men—not white—governed, white city leaders pledged to “choke the current of the Cape Fear with carcasses” rather than allow Wilmington’s Black citizens to succeed, and lead.

When the carnage ended, more than 100 Black government officials—city councilmen, the city clerk, the treasurer, the city attorney and others—had been forced from their elected roles. Somewhere between 60 and 250 Black citizens were murdered.”


https://www.history.com/news/wilmington-massacre-1898-coup


On January 6, 2021 thousands of white supremacists stormed the US Capitol to ‘Stop the Steal’ for their anger was directed at the votes of BIPOC folks whose coalition provided the winning margins in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona and Georgia.

If the insurrection had been successful the US government line of succession would have been decapitated and executive power would have remained with defeated president.

If that doesn’t tell where this nation is in terms of “progress” you’re either delusional, intellectually dishonest or stupid.

Achtung, motherfuckers!

If you feel the need to be patted on your back for ‘how far we’ve come’ then reach up and do it yourself.

”I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice” [...]

Martin Luther King - 1963

History.com. from the same company who brings you "American Pickers" and "Pawn Stars".

So, Banks, is this Ham stifling the conversation by the attack on what else History dot com runs rather than the substance?

Going to call him out for that?

LOL

No, that was me purposefully making the same kind of "argument" that Larry and the rest of the cabal used to go after Maher in order to see who would grasp it as such.

Glad you did. There's hope for you, yet.

[bankshot1]

That you still don't understand what a strawman is doesn't surprise me.    But thank God you no longer feel compelled to call Bankshot a child molester.

Clearly, because banks has joined his anti Larry cabal.

Nope I just thought Utley asked a legit on topic question.

Not my point, which was not targeted at you. And so far a whole bunch of us here don't think it is a legit topic because the argument proceeds from a false premise. And, was posited here by posters that have a history.

Red's post was a troll. But it was legit post on Maher's editorial closing this week-end, and a topic discussed here in Elba over the  past few months.

And I wasn't aware that the Elba Council of Woke had put the the topic on its not to be discussed list.

those e-mails usually go to spam.

[josh]

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,

Too funny, Banks.

You simultaneously accuse folks of stifling by their attacks on Maher and then attack me as part of the made up "woke council," which I must be because I deny that Maher's words were stifled.

It wasn't a strawman argument --> you claimed it had been stifled. I responded based on what STIFLE means. You kept insisting you were right to say that.

Was it deflected?

Sure, in their posts as happens when we disagree with a comment, whether Maher, OAN, or (as just seen) History Channel.

Why people objected to Maher was spelled out.

You took issue with the claim that he's a libertarian.

Maher's words were provided to you, but you still want to claim he's a liberal. Even if you want to claim that he's a Rockefeller or Reagan "Democrat," that's still not liberal.

I do agree that Larry and others, myself included, took the air out of Maher's argument.

I'm glad you think so, too.

[josh]

https://apnews.com/article/justice-official-demers-resigning-secretly-seized-records-e9fd00c31fc53f827a8921f551b4008e

[Hamilton Samuels]

That you still don't understand what a strawman is doesn't surprise me.    But thank God you no longer feel compelled to call Bankshot a child molester.

Clearly, because banks has joined his anti Larry cabal.

Nope I just thought Utley asked a legit on topic question.

"You say 'legit on topic question'.  I say 'trolling and race-baiting'." (sung to the tune of "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off").

Of course you say that. That's a classic woke playbook strategy: attack anyone who questions the woke-notions derigueur!

[bankshot1]

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,

Too funny, Banks.

You simultaneously accuse folks of stifling by their attacks on Maher and then attack me as part of the made up "woke council," which I must be because I deny that Maher's words were stifled.

It wasn't a strawman argument --> you claimed it had been stifled. I responded based on what STIFLE means. You kept insisting you were right to say that.

Was it deflected?

Sure, in their posts as happens when we disagree with a comment, whether Maher, OAN, or (as just seen) History Channel.

Why people objected to Maher was spelled out.

You took issue with the claim that he's a libertarian.

Maher's words were provided to you, but you still want to claim he's a liberal. Even if you want to claim that he's a Rockefeller or Reagan "Democrat," that's still not liberal.

I do agree that Larry and others, myself included, took the air out of Maher's argument.

I'm glad you think so, too.

Josh you miss more points than imaginable.

Maher's opinion on "woke" should have been the topic discussed.

I could care less about his pot smoking....

The issue was woke, specifically Maher's 8 minute closing editorial,  that the woke here did not see, listen to or have the ability to discuss.

So it became lets attack Maher's past.

Because they could not deal with the facts at hand.

As Maher sugested in his editorial.

Josh-Go back to sleep.

[Yankguy1]

That you still don't understand what a strawman is doesn't surprise me.    But thank God you no longer feel compelled to call Bankshot a child molester.

Clearly, because banks has joined his anti Larry cabal.

Nope I just thought Utley asked a legit on topic question.

"You say 'legit on topic question'.  I say 'trolling and race-baiting'." (sung to the tune of "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off").

Of course you say that. That's a classic woke playbook strategy: attack anyone who questions the woke-notions derigueur!

That you still don't understand what a strawman is doesn't surprise me.    But thank God you no longer feel compelled to call Bankshot a child molester.

Clearly, because banks has joined his anti Larry cabal.

Nope I just thought Utley asked a legit on topic question.

"You say 'legit on topic question'.  I say 'trolling and race-baiting'." (sung to the tune of "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off").

Of course you say that. That's a classic woke playbook strategy: attack anyone who questions the woke-notions derigueur!

"Woke-notions derigueur!!!"  Now you're using one of them, there foreign dictionaries.  That you think you're entitled to the benefit of the doubt, that you actually wish to engage in serious, intellectual discourse, given your history here, is very amusing.  If you actually want to discuss these things, as I said earlier, you're probably better off going someplace where people don't think you're an asshole.

[Yankguy1]

Maher's opinion on "woke" should have been the topic discussed.

His "opinion on woke" WAS the strawman.  He referred to an argument that nobody (save a couple of attention seeking loudmouths- and it takes one to know one) was actually making.  That's the definition of a strawman argument. 

[LarryBnDC]

”Larry's comments stifled, took the air out, deflected, whatever,”

That’s bullshit.

Maher is full of shit. I watched him when he went from Comedy Central to ABC and I stopped watching his HBO show several years ago because I found him to be an insufferable shit head.

I’ve also posted my POV on the subject of how much ‘progress’ has been made by the nation.

I don’t think America can pat herself on the back if we’re still fighting some of the same basic battles we’ve fought since emancipation.