Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

[SleepingSilence]

@Dynamo Frokane I've been busy on vacation and doing other things. I've finally lacked anything to do for a little while, so I figured might as well jump in the rabbit role again. But, I'll pass on that request. It can't be passive aggressive, because it wasn't even directed at anyone specifically. <.<

"I held the door open for a female type once and she didn't say thank you. What a cunt. They don't want a generous guy like me."

But posts like this. Without context quoted or anything, so what am I even suppose to do with that in a political discussion? Am I expected to believe somewhere in the pages I missed that will somehow come off as intelligent political discourse? You expect me to address things like this in a serious matter? I don't have much to do, but I'll find something to do before I get deep into shit like this. When I use the word Strawman, I don't use it in any other matter than what that fallacy means, and that's one of several that fit the definition in spades.

Hell, if I really want to go further. (like actually taking your comment seriously.) That statement (in red) is passive aggressive and I saw no comment from you calling it out. <.< So don't make rules that aren't followed by everyone. I don't mind if the statement is a shitpost and the thread is fine with shitposting. (I just stated I clearly missed nothing important.) Just take the comment with a grain of salt.

[Dolerman]

"I held the door open for a female type once and she didn't say thank you. What a cunt. They don't want a generous guy like me."

@SleepingSilence

You fly off the handle pretty fucking quickly dont you?

And I didn't call it out because it wasn't a strawman. For it to be a strawman she would have to be misrepresenting someone's views and attacking something they never said. But there was no target in particular, it was just an example quote of the type of logic that a gentle-sir MIGHT use on the internet.

If she asserted that someone in particular believed that way, I would have called her out, but who exactly did she misrepresent?

[SleepingSilence]

@Dynamo Frokane You really are trying to pretend that's a sensible thing aren't you? And speaking of straws, your grasping at them. I'm not going to start a debate on why that blanket statement isn't a viable statement in a political discussion thread. <.<

[Dolerman]

@Dynamo Frokane You really are trying to pretend that's a sensible thing aren't you? And speaking of straws, your grasping at them. I'm not going to start a debate on why that blanket statement isn't a viable statement in a political discussion thread. <.<

@SleepingSilence

Yeah because you know it wouldn't go well for you considering that @Fabricant451 wasn't even debating anybody. Please don't start this crap about 'political discussion thread' you know there is plenty room for memes and jokes here too.

[Fabricant451]

@Dynamo Frokane I've been busy on vacation and doing other things. I've finally lacked anything to do for a little while, so I figured might as well jump in the rabbit role again. But, I'll pass on that request. It can't be passive aggressive, because it wasn't even directed at anyone specifically. <.<

"I held the door open for a female type once and she didn't say thank you. What a cunt. They don't want a generous guy like me."

But posts like this. Without context quoted or anything, so what am I even suppose to do with that in a political discussion? Am I expected to believe somewhere in the pages I missed that will somehow come off as intelligent political discourse? You expect me to address things like this in a serious matter? I don't have much to do, but I'll find something to do before I get deep into shit like this. When I use the word Strawman, I don't use it in any other matter than what that fallacy means, and that's one of several that fit the definition in spades.

Hell, if I really want to go further. (like actually taking your comment seriously.) That statement (in red) is passive aggressive and I saw no comment from you calling it out. <.< So don't make rules that aren't followed by everyone. I don't mind if the statement is a shitpost and the thread is fine with shitposting. (I just stated I clearly missed nothing important.) Just take the comment with a grain of salt.

@SleepingSilence

Dude I was shit posting.

[SleepingSilence]

I'm not going to start a debate.

@SleepingSilence

@Dynamo Frokane I refer all your terrible attempts at bait to this.

[SleepingSilence]

I don't mind if the statement is a shitpost and the thread is fine with shitposting.

@SleepingSilence

@Fabricant451 You people can't read. Actually I know you can, you guys just play stupid so often I can't imagine it not affecting your real IQ levels.

I already pointed out, I don't care that the whole place is shit posting. I know you're not the only that does it, you know, he knows. This false ignorance and baiting is beyond pathetic, I have more do than literally waste my time. <.<

Also shitposting, doesn't not make it a strawman. It just means you used a fallacy/stereotype/generalization in jest.

[Fabricant451]

This baiting is beyond pathetic

@SleepingSilence

you guys just play stupid so often I can't imagine it not affecting your real IQ levels.

You wanna be the Pot or the Kettle here?

[Fabricant451]

<Snipped quote by SleepingSilence>

Also shitposting, doesn't not make it a strawman. It just means you used a fallacy/stereotype/generalization in jest.

@SleepingSilence

The fact that there wasn't an argument presented and that there wasn't a debate going on when I made that comment makes it not a strawman. I wasn't strawmanning. I was literally shitposting in response to whatever it was.

[SleepingSilence]

@Fabricant451 I want to live and let live, It wasn't meant to single you out, but you know that too.

Go ahead and pretend sexist generalizations aren't passive aggressive or things used in strawman arguments. Fine. Just don't bother me when I point it out as such. Why can't my statements be considered shitposts and left alone?
I know why. But neither of you have a legit reason for it.

Off topic, but did you really have to make that 3 separate posts? Spam me much? <.<

And if this somehow become 6 different replies in my inbox, I'll be done discussing with you as well.

[Fabricant451]

Go ahead and pretend sexist generalizations aren't passive aggressive or things used in strawman arguments. Fine. Just don't bother me when I point it out as such.

@SleepingSilence

I'm not saying generalizations aren't used as strawmans - or at least people like to spout it all over the place. I'm saying that my post wasn't a strawman because it doesn't even fit the definition of the term. You're pointing out something that ISN'T an example as a means of suggesting that it WAS an example. The reason you didn't see Dynamo comment on it is because A: He had the context for the comment and B: He understood that it was said in jest. My comment wasn't aimed at anyone in this thread. It's what is commonly referred to as 'a joke'. Now the humor of it is up for debate but it remains that it was not a stance or an argument or anything political. To answer your question: No. No one expected you or anyone to respond to it in a serious matter.

You get on us for not reading but you couldn't be bothered to look up and get the context for the post?

If anyone got offended by that particular comment, well then perhaps I struck a nerve and what's that say about them.

Why can't my statements be considered shitposts and left alone?

Dunno, man. Why can't mine?

I know why. But neither of you have a legit reason for it.

If you made a shitpost I would leave it alone. Shit, man, I didn't even know this was happening until I got tagged in like a wrasslin' match. Please don't say that the reason your statements can't be left alone is a victim thing because we've been down that road and it's not the case. It's really hard to consider your statements as shitposts when you get so offensive about things (read: my statement) and then get upset when we respond and call you out on them. If it's some long form trolling then it's really not working. You come off as being rather serious in your indictments here.

Which is why we don't consider your statements shitposts.

Off topic, but did you really have to make that 3 separate posts? Spam me much? <.<

It was two because you edited a post while I made mine and I'm a rebel who doesn't like the edit feature anyway.

And if this somehow become 6 different replies in my inbox, I'll be done discussing with you as well.

See this is the level of discourse I've come to expect.

[Andreyich]

This should be clarified, to repercussions NOT including by any government/arrested for just opinionated speech

Well of course, what I meant is that you shouldn't be surprised at the backlash of what you say from the groups beyond government control, i.e. the aforementioned Charlie Hebdo.

From my limit discussions with you I can assure you, you aren't as Conservative as you think you are.

Eh, depends on what axis.

[SleepingSilence]

@Fabricant451 I got 3 messages from you for some reason, my bad, blame the site I guess then. Blame Dynamo if you must. He wanted an example of a strawman, I gave him that quickest I could find. Simple as that. Also you shouldn't expect discourse, if you speak primarily in shitposting. -.-

Just sum it up to misunderstanding, and bait that I didn't feel like dealing with and leave it there eh?

[Fabricant451]

Also you shouldn't expect discourse, if you speak primarily in shitposting. -.-

@SleepingSilence

I don't speak primarily in shitpost. As has been demonstrated various times when the need arises I'm able to be civil and serious. This was one of those times, hence why discourse was expected.

[POOHEAD189]

While I'm of the contention shit posting should only be for the spam section, Sleeping might have gone a tad too far, but she said we should drop it and that's probably the best thing to do.

*insert random political topic*

[SleepingSilence]

@POOHEAD189 I didn't go too far, I merely stated a fact that people (not singling anyone out.) were posting dumb things and it wasn't worth my time. Someone who enjoys to bait me, baited me. And now I have another person arguing semantics.

@Fabricant451 The problem was I wasn't seriously saying anything either. You'd have known I wasn't condemning shit posting, or anything you said outright like it was anything but a joke. If you actually read my paragraph long comment, it would've been clear.

Really? What was being discussed that needed to be serious? Whether or not that comment was appropriate with or without context? I get it, it's a joke. But jokes don't need to be discussed seriously. My original comment was a passing observation, that then merely used you as an example (after being purposefully accused.) I'd use several examples but then several people would be blowing it out of proportion. <.<

Now back to anime. Have a good rest of your afternoon.

[Fabricant451]

@SleepingSilence You have this habit of being passive aggressive when you're trying to drop something. You have to be aware you're doing it, right? Is that the thing? You dangle a piece of bait wrapped around the notion of 'Well let's just drop it okay' which is a pretty suspect thing to do. You should maybe stop doing that. If nothing else it'll make you seem like a more willing participant in a discussion like this instead of someone who drops the victim card as soon as your side is challenged back.

For the record, I did read your second paragraph. It doesn't excuse or overwrite the first paragraph.

For the second record,

Someone who enjoys to bait me, baited me.

@SleepingSilence

You weren't baited. You literally did the thing I mentioned in my first paragraph here.

For the third record, this isn't semantics.

It can't be passive aggressive, because it wasn't even directed at anyone specifically. <.<

"I held the door open for a female type once and she didn't say thank you. What a cunt. They don't want a generous guy like me."

I Posted This

It can't be passive aggressive, because it wasn't even directed at anyone specifically. <.<

You Posted This

That statement (in red) is passive aggressive

You Posted This Too

Why is mine passive aggressive but yours not? Yours, of course, being

I saw a lot of strawman walking on by, so I clearly missed nothing

Now we're gonna get into semantics. But my comment didn't reference or allude to anyone specifically in this thread but rather a broad stroke joke at the expense of a specific type of group. You implied that people posting in this thread frequently do little more than strawman. You might not have named any names specifically but because your comment specifically mentioned you peeking into this thread it implies that you're talking about people that post here regularly. You don't have to name names for it to come off as passive aggressive bullshit which is why Dynamo did the whole thing of, you know, suggesting you don't do that.

On the whole your particular manner of posting tends to color discussions with you a particular way. Which is why I'd really suggest you tone down the whole stuff like this:

If you actually read my paragraph long comment, it would've been clear. [...] And if this somehow become 6 different replies in my inbox, I'll be done discussing with you as well. [...] Now back to anime. Have a good rest of your afternoon.

Since we're all generally civil here and stuff like this just makes you come off as, well, as kind of a passive aggressive douche. For clarification, I'm not calling you that.

[The Harbinger of Ferocity]

If we are settled with this, as we should have long been, has anyone noticed that the Russian narrative in the United States is dead? I have noticed a trend here that seems to coincide with a new investigation being opened and even talk again of Seth Rich, which some are now trying to push as a Fox News conspiracy narrative. As utterly phony as that is, the media appears to run out of steam to run on for the past week or so; hardly a surprise, that. I note it because there seems to be a calm before the storm, even with their shots at the military transgender issue or Scaramucci.

[Penny]

It is hard to keep running the headline 'Mueller Still Investigating' when you could run the more sensational headline of President Does Something Stupid and Pointless (which I guess covers both the Scaramucci and Trans-gender story).

[Andreyich]

If we are settled with this, as we should have long been, has anyone noticed that the Russian narrative in the United States is dead?

What specifically do you mean by Russian narrative?