Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck. I don't go for politically correct lingo. It is what it is. I have justified my characterization of the occupists as gangs and you need to recognize that. You don't have to agree with me, but at least do as I do and recognize that everyone has their own perceptions. Like with your hope for the country eventually completely changing the constitution, I'm not going to keep at you and keep at you until I can "cure" you. It's your view and that's fine. I'm not going to whine about your view and not going to call you names, that's who you are, and you can accept me for who I am. On a forum like this I wouldn't think that's asking too much.

More of your dissembling ...

The difference is that I am addressing your use of language and that you use particular words deliberately to provoke. That is what it means to be a troll. When I raise a question of changing the U.S. Constitution, I don't call people who defend it by names. You are called a troll not for your defense of the Constitution.

This isn't about being politically correct or not.

I have written time and again that I consider you to be an intelligent person. Therefore, I know when you are being a troll, because you are intelligent enough to choose specifically to be one. But perhaps I am wrong. Maybe you really don't get it. (I doubt that.)

I have never sought to "cure" you of your opinions, only to point out that you discuss dishonestly and that you behave like a troll. This is a community, and time and again you disrespect the community with your troll behavior.

You're right: "It is what it is." And what it is is this: you post like a troll, get called on it, and then you're the one who tries to change the subject. That is it's own unique form of whining.

As for the use of the word "gang," let me ask you these questions (two of many examples I could pose):

- When the Republicans in Florida organized political operatives to go to the Broward County Board of Elections and pound on the door as they were doing their recount, and act threateningly, and get in the elevator with election workers and menace them, was that a "gang"?

- When the Tea Party in Virginia posted Congressman Tom Perriello's address on the Web and encouraged people to visit him and "express their thanks" for his yes vote on the Obama healthcare bill, but they mistakenly posted his brother's address, and the brother had the gas line to his home severed, were they behaving like a "gang"? (This is an example from dozens where the Tea Party encouraged vigilante-like action against elected representatives).

You want to reserve for yourself the right to use troll language but claim that it's all about the right to one's personal "perspective." To quote the inimitable Tracy Coxx: "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck."

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

More of your dissembling ...

The difference is that I am addressing your use of language and that you use particular words deliberately to provoke. That is what it means to be a troll.

Actually what it means is:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

My posting about ows being gangs was neither extraneous or off-topic. This thread is called Today's Political Landscape. Do you deny that OWS is part of today's political landscape? It is on topic. Does it provoke readers into an emotional response? You assume what I said was to provoke. Let's be honest. Anything I post which you do not agree with will elicit an emotional response by you. Care must then be taken with that definition because it assumes that discussion can be had without an emotional response. As long as any and all opinions of mine that you don't agree with elicits an emotional response from you, your accusations of being a troll are obligatory responses that should be ignored. Unfortunately you take advantage of the fact that the more you say something, true or not, the more people believe it.

Originally Posted by smc

When I raise a question of changing the U.S. Constitution, I don't call people who defend it by names. You are called a troll not for your defense of the Constitution.

And you're intelligent enough to know that I never said or implied that I was called a troll for my defense of the Constitution.

Originally Posted by smc

I have never sought to "cure" you of your opinions, only to point out that you discuss dishonestly

Wrong. I honestly believe that some people within the occupy protests behave as gangs.

Originally Posted by smc

As for the use of the word "gang," let me ask you these questions (two of many examples I could pose):

- When the Republicans in Florida organized political operatives to go to the Broward County Board of Elections and pound on the door as they were doing their recount, and act threateningly, and get in the elevator with election workers and menace them, was that a "gang"?

Knowing how you mischaracterize sometimes, I would like to see video of that since I have no knowledge of that.

Originally Posted by smc

- When the Tea Party in Virginia posted Congressman Tom Perriello's address on the Web and encouraged people to visit him and "express their thanks" for his yes vote on the Obama healthcare bill, but they mistakenly posted his brother's address, and the brother had the gas line to his home severed, were they behaving like a "gang"? (This is an example from dozens where the Tea Party encouraged vigilante-like action against elected representatives).

Accidentally giving the wrong address aside, if what you say had happened, then obviously it is gang behavior.

Originally Posted by smc

You want to reserve for yourself the right to use troll language but claim that it's all about the right to one's personal "perspective."

Yes, and it's well known that my personal perspective offends you. Everything that proceeds from that fact becomes quite predictable and monotonous. So with that, I'll get back to the topic as people can read for themselves how these "You're a troll" "Am not" "Are too" conversations go as they are all over the political threads.

And yes, I did notice that you moved to your default position of attacking the poster (not the topic of the thread btw) rather than the well said anti-occupy video I posted.

[smc]

As exasperating as arguing with you is, Tracy, the one thing that makes it easy is that you are so consistent.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Actually what it means is:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

My posting about ows being gangs was neither extraneous or off-topic. This thread is called Today's Political Landscape. Do you deny that OWS is part of today's political landscape? It is on topic. Does it provoke readers into an emotional response? You assume what I said was to provoke. Let's be honest. Anything I post which you do not agree with will elicit an emotional response by you. Care must then be taken with that definition because it assumes that discussion can be had without an emotional response. As long as any and all opinions of mine that you don't agree with elicits an emotional response from you, your accusations of being a troll are obligatory responses that should be ignored. Unfortunately you take advantage of the fact that the more you say something, true or not, the more people believe it.

Putting aside that this same thing could be said of you -- "you take advantage of the fact that the more you say something, true or not, the more people believe it" -- what is most notable in your response is that you provide a definition that includes three elements: "inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages". You then go on to defend your post because it is neither "extraneous" nor "off-topic." Of course, what I have said consistently is that your troll-like behavior is of the deliberately INFLAMMATORY variety. I leave the fact that you dealt with the other two, but not that one, for others to interpret (and we have a lot of really smart people reading these posts ).

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

And you're intelligent enough to know that I never said or implied that I was called a troll for my defense of the Constitution.

Nor did I ever suggest that you had done so. But by writing what I quote above, you trick the less-careful reader, or the reader who hasn't followed every bit of the exchange, into thinking that I did. We study that kind of thing in my rhetoric classes. It derives from the Greek Sophists, who were masters of what most accurately should be called rhetorical bullshit.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Wrong. I honestly believe that some people within the occupy protests behave as gangs.

As is typical, once you are called out for your troll-like inflammatory language, you begin to retreat. In Post 114, you wrote: "Many people on this thread are of the Bush's Fault camp or of the Occupy gangs."

No one reading that can fail to notice that now you say "some people ... behave as gangs," whereas I responded (quite specifically) to your generalization when using the term. So, shall we take this to be your way of admitting that the generalization was wrong?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Knowing how you mischaracterize sometimes, I would like to see video of that since I have no knowledge of that.

I will look for video. Meanwhile, you can search news archives from the time, and add Miami-Dade to the mix. You will find newspaper reports of the Bush campaign hiring a "mob" and of the Justice Department launching an investigation. Of course, once Bush became president, the investigation was quietly dropped. Lest you claim that I am mischaracterizing that last point, historians from all across the political spectrum agree that the Bush Justice Department -- independent of the content of the politics -- was the most politicized Justice Department of the modern era.

By the way, I find it hard to believe you "have no knowledge" of these events. You registered on this site with a birthday that makes you old enough to have been cognizant of what was holding the United States at the edge of its collective seat during that period, and unless your interest in politics is a recent phenomenon, you would have had to shut your eyes and ears to miss the reporting.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Accidentally giving the wrong address aside, if what you say had happened, then obviously it is gang behavior.

Nice of you to say so. Meanwhile, as for the method of discourse, I refer readers to my response above regarding the clever implication that I may have made up what was widely reported in the media, that was addressed by the Virgina Tea Party leaders, and what became the subject of investigation by law enforcement agencies.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Yes, and it's well known that my personal perspective offends you. Everything that proceeds from that fact becomes quite predictable and monotonous. So with that, I'll get back to the topic as people can read for themselves how these "You're a troll" "Am not" "Are too" conversations go as they are all over the political threads.

And yes, I did notice that you moved to your default position of attacking the poster (not the topic of the thread btw) rather than the well said anti-occupy video I posted.

Your double standard is quite appalling. I hadn't gotten a chance to watch the video (which is nearly 10 minutes long) but have every intention of responding. You disappear for days at a time after posting things and getting responses.

But, by writing what I quote just above, you get to create the illusion that I am either afraid to respond to a post, or that I can't because I don't know what to say, or that I deliberately ignore something, or whatever. It's all of a type, and it's why you get called out on your method time and again.