IDL vs. The War Room

[kpt018]

I don't agree.

1. He isn't very good at backing up an argument, but that doesn't mean his original observation is always wrong.

Um, so his posting quality is poor. Ok.

2. The arguments have played out a dozen times and they are always the same.

And those arguments are never about the thread topic. They are always about IDL. IDL at least posts about the OP.

Ok lets play out an abbreviated example.

OP: Growing income inequality is a major issue facing our economy and we need policy change.

IDL: The reason we have growing inequality is because the powers that be, who secretly control everything, want a divided country and use media outlets to put the wealthy against the poor.

Me: That doesn't make any sense. The media is not controlled by a single group, etc. etc. etc.

In this exchange, you mean to tell me that I am the problem? I am the one who derailed the thread? WHAT?!

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Unsupported make believe CTs are not what I would call "on topic". When you post that type of stuff it is inevitable that they will drive threads off topic.

Anyway, I'm not calling for the guy to get banned or anything I welcome all opinions!

I partially disagree.

IDL pretty much does post on-topic. Whether or not you subscribe to his theory is irrelevant. But if you've hashed out the same argument a dozen times and nothing has come of it besides derailed threads then maybe learn from it and ignore the post that set you off?

And not all CTs are fantasy. Every day a government or a business or a regular Joe is conspiring to get one over on somebody, something, etc. Just because you aren't aware of it or don't want to acknowledge it, or just think its rubbish doesn't make it so.

 

[IDL]

Also, as others have said, this is a debate forum. IDL doesn't get some special privilege to be immune from being challenged. Just because he's a one trick pony doesn't mean that he gets to do that trick without being challenged on it.

I enjoy being challenged, and wouldn't want it any other way.

But, there is challenging in good faith and then there is just attacking for the sake of ridicule and whatnot.

I don't even mind that so much as it comes with the territory, but it does tend to get threads going in the wrong direction.

I fully understand that most people won't agree with where I am coming from, and that's totally fine. Everyone has different perspectives, different research they have done, different life experience, ect.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

IDL is one of the best posters here.

 

[kpt018]

I partially disagree.

IDL pretty much does post on-topic. Whether or not you subscribe to his theory is irrelevant. But if you've hashed out the same argument a dozen times and nothing has come of it besides derailed threads then maybe learn from it and ignore the post that set you off?

When you argue, the things you say are up for debate, no? If he brings it up, how the hell is it my fault for countering them?

And not all CTs are fantasy. Every day a government or a business or a regular Joe is conspiring to get one over on somebody, something, etc. Just because you aren't aware of it or don't want to acknowledge it, or just think its rubbish doesn't make it so.

Now we get to the real purpose of the thread

 

[3825 968]

i wish IDLs buddy was still around.... to bad he committed sui by porn.

 

[Jukai]

No, its because you guys go for the low hanging fruit.

Asking a conspiracy theorist for sources is like acting a religious man for proof of God. There is no proof. Their is faith and maybe some breadcrumbs. But you guys love to feel superior in contrast to his posting style.


And don't get me wrong, I'm not defending IDL. If this were the heavies or mayberry then I wouldn't even notice it. But this is the WR, and its been slow and a good thread is rare. MadSquabbles started a poignant thread and it devolved into IDL vs. The WR within 40 posts.

Thats ridiculous.

But why are you blaming the people attacking IDL's stupid fucking posts and not attacking IDL for his stupid fucking posts?

 

[IDL]

It would probably help the cause if he didn't act so intellectually superior all the time, like he "gets it" and the rest of us are just ignorant cretins.

Noted. I'm aware that I risk coming off that way sometimes and that it would undermine what I might be saying.

 

[IDL]

But why are you blaming the people attacking IDL's stupid fucking posts and not attacking IDL for his stupid fucking posts?

Advocating an attack is going to get your peace prize revoked, Arafat.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

This thread is just a smokescreen designed by the illuminati.


Anung, we know you are just a conehead trying to distract us from the globalization movement. Go back to the Vatican.

honest chuckle.

Not really, they're always the same (and so can't always be on topic) and are always uninformative. It also is, I think, important to refute misinformation.

Anung is just mad because he's a CT'er too.

No, I'm mad because you guys derail good threads.

You know why you're mad? Because you recognized your MO in the OP without being named. You get your rocks off by getting in these circle jerk arguments with IDL, thinking everybody is thinking 'wow, this guy is smart'. In reality we all left the thread once you and others derailed it.

It would probably help the cause if he didn't act so intellectually superior all the time, like he "gets it" and the rest of us are just ignorant cretins.

C'mon man. Do you challenge every person you see how acts superior to you?
Do you follow him around and challenge him every single day?

I get the original challenge, but it gets predictable, no? At that point, what is the point?

Um, so his posting quality is poor. Ok.



Ok lets play out an abbreviated example.

OP: Growing income inequality is a major issue facing our economy and we need policy change.

IDL: The reason we have growing inequality is because the powers that be, who secretly control everything, want a divided country and use media outlets to put the wealthy against the poor.

Me: That doesn't make any sense. The media is not controlled by a single group, etc. etc. etc.

In this exchange, you mean to tell me that I am the problem? I am the one who derailed the thread? WHAT?!

I'm not saying he is a bad poster, I'm saying he can't say anything that you will believe because the NYT doesn't report on the stuff he believes in and some of you only believe what the NYT times reports. That is pretty much the antithesis of what he believes.


And the above argument would be absolutely valid, if it hadn't already played out a dozen times.

 

[Jukai]

Advocating an attack is going to get your peace prize revoked, Arafat.

I'm advocating attacking the oppressor, namely you. Do YOU support apartheid?

 

[kpt018]

I'm not saying he is a bad poster, I'm saying he can't say anything that you will believe because the NYT doesn't report on the stuff he believes in and some of you only believe what the NYT times reports. That is pretty much the antithesis of what he believes.


And the above argument would be absolutely valid, if it hadn't already played out a dozen times.

No, I believe in things that can be supported by reason and evidence. His default position is conspiracy, regardless of the evidence. It is not a matter of different principles or anything.

Anyway, I don't really go back and forth with him much and he doesn't bother me so I just continue on as usual.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Now we get to the real purpose of the thread

No.

But why are you blaming the people attacking IDL's stupid fucking posts and not attacking IDL for his stupid fucking posts?

If they're so stupid then why are you compelled to argue about with him for page after page of babble unrelated to the thread?

 

[IDL]

I'm advocating attacking the oppressor, namely you. Do YOU support apartheid?

Gosh no I don't support apartheid! If attacking me means ending apartheid then so be it!

 

[kpt018]

No.



If they're so stupid then why are you compelled to argue about with him for page after page of babble unrelated to the thread?

I got it, you also believe in CTs and you are probably conservative (since you don't like Jack, Jukai's or my responses to IDL).

This thread is wasting time.

 

[speakhandsforme]

I've never noticed him being that bad. But, I've grown less attentive here.

 

[UpaLoompa]

No, I'm mad because you guys derail good threads.

You know why you're mad? Because you recognized your MO in the OP without being named. You get your rocks off by getting in these circle jerk arguments with IDL, thinking everybody is thinking 'wow, this guy is smart'. In reality we all left the thread once you and others derailed it.

Hypothetical: Someone comes into a thread discussing the Hobby Lobby ruling and says something to the effect of: "This ruling is just to create divisiveness so that people don't realize that (unnamed but if they had names they'd probably be Semitic (or sometimes Catholic)) are actually pulling the strings."
That statement is on-topic.

Someone else saying: "That doesn't make sense for reasons ...long list demonstrating utter lack of internal consistency in (IDL's) post... and furthermore contradicts your positions on X, Y, and Z."
That response is off-topic derailment.

As I said, you just don't like absurd CT nonsense argued against because you also espouse absurd CT nonsense.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Anyway, I don't really go back and forth with him much and he doesn't bother me so I just continue on as usual.

Exactly my point.

But the same group of posters latch onto him every single thread and what was once a thread about economic inequality is now about jerkface and *sticks out tongue*

 

[Jack V Savage]

IDLs responses are on topic though.

I have literally never seen an on-topic response from him. He turns every discussion into some crazy CT, and when the substance of his post is challenged, he responds with one-line personal attacks that ignore the substance.

As for the thread, it's odd that a poster would want for special treatment for one guy as a way to prevent threads from getting out of control. If you're calling for the authorities to intervene, it would seem that there's a more obvious target (though I think that's kind of a bitch move).

Also, FYI, Anung, a "circle jerk" figuratively refers to everyone praising each other.

 

[UpaLoompa]

You know what his response is w/o ever having to read his shit anymore. All of us do. Yet you and Jack just can't help yourselves from egging him on.

This isn't an awful perspective but should blatantly false points or blatantly absurd arguments really be just let by?

I've seen more than a few posters comment about absurd CT's making sense when they clearly implode with the slightest scrutiny.