Official War Room Awards 2017

TheGreatA said:
Of course it is. Being a realistic actor is also better than being an unrealistic actor. A realistic actor provides people with better quality entertainment. So does a realistic "troll" or "gimmick account".

But I do not consider a person playing an exaggerated version of themselves on the internet a troll. I consider them normal. The people who don't do such a thing, I would consider them abnormal, and as greatly "missing the point" of the internet, and what it is supposed to stand for.

If it were for people to moderate themselves and tone themselves down as they do in regular social situations, then there would be no use whatsoever for the invention.
Click to expand...

As someone who plays an extremely exaggerated version of theirself (with the added caveat that i'm from the worst timeline), it's definitely trolling.

That's kinda the fun in it after all.
 
Falsedawn said:
As someone who plays an extremely exaggerated version of theirself (with the added caveat that i'm from the worst timeline), it's definitely trolling.

That's kinda the fun in it after all.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'm playing any exaggerated version of myself. I think it's good appendix to the news to see what people with different ideas think about it, and I'll push back on what I think are bad arguments. I'm genuinely disappointed when I see people post stupid shit, though I admit sometimes it's funny. And it's good exercise for thinking skills to try to spell out where exactly people are getting things wrong.
 
Jack V Savage said:
That's because you're dumb, though (no offense).

Partisanship really kind of has two lumps, if you think about the general public. Most voters don't know shit about issues or even have a recognizable ideology. They have an understanding of what party seems like people like them, and vote that way, and decide their views on issues that way. That kind of partisanship is common among the general public and some of the lesser posters here. Anne Coulter said that Hannity would support communism if the proposal came from Trump, and that applies to a lot of people here. Moving up a level, you have people like Inga, who read enough to be able to articulate a coherent ideology but are still invariably going to defend the party line with some bullshit ("OMG, a debt crisis will destroy us all!" when a Democrat is in the WH followed by, "well a huge increase in deficits is OK because Democrats"). What you'll see from me is consistent liberalism, which is very different from partisanship.
Click to expand...

You spent all that time typing this to someone who has seen your bullshit for 10 years. Your unabashed support for Democrats over the last decade is legendary.

And I'm dumb?

Well Jack - at least I'm honest with myself.
 
Stoic1 said:
You spent all that time typing this to someone who has seen your bullshit for 10 years. Your unabashed support for Democrats over the last decade is legendary.

And I'm dumb?

Well Jack - at least I'm honest with myself.
Click to expand...

You're unable to distinguish between liberalism and "unabashed support for Democrats," though. That's (part of) the basis for my judgment of your thinking skills, and what I tried to explain to you in the post that followed. I've only been in the WR since 2011, BTW, and I've disagreed with Democrats on probably dozens of issues over that time.
 
Jack V Savage said:
I don't think I'm playing any exaggerated version of myself. I think it's good appendix to the news to see what people with different ideas think about it, and I'll push back on what I think are bad arguments. I'm genuinely disappointed when I see people post stupid shit, though I admit sometimes it's funny. And it's good exercise for thinking skills to try to spell out where exactly people are getting things wrong.
Click to expand...

Not gonna lie brother, you put way more into it than I do. Not to say that I don't have my moments of seriousness, but the vast majority of the time i'm just in it for the laughs. I get more value out of lurking and learning as opposed to hashing it out with the opposing side. I learned fairly early in that you're not going to change many minds around here, so why not rustle some jimmies and have fun with it. Arguing politics offline is trivial thanks to being in here, so I just take what I can get and roll with it.

I think the only thing that really gets me is blatantly false information. Most of the righties here think i'm hella partisan, but they never correlated that I tend to show up when they start projecting their tenuous interpretation of truth into the real world. This "fake news" era has been driving me nuts for that reason.
 
Falsedawn said:
I think the only thing that really gets me is blatantly false information. Most of the righties here think i'm hella partisan, but they never correlated that I tend to show up when they start projecting their tenuous interpretation of truth into the real world. This "fake news" era has been driving me nuts for that reason.
Click to expand...

I'm bothered less by factual errors (even obvious ones) than by the way people (like Anung) just completely abandon any sense of right and wrong out of spite and certainty of the rightness of their cause, leading them not merely on the opposite side of an issue, but not even playing the same game.

Look at the example of campaign finance (that @VivaRevolution, someone I don't respect, brought up). My position, backed up by research, is that campaign donations don't lead to (and aren't intended to lead to) politicians changing their views on major issues. Candidates who agree with the donor in the first place get donations. So the way it works is if I'm a candidate who strongly opposes any form of gun control, either the NRA will find me or I can go to them and ask for some help. The way it doesn't work is the NRA sees that I support gun control and helps me win the election in exchange for me changing my position.

So that's just pretty much a factual dispute that can be resolved by looking at who gets donations and how often positions are changed, etc. I think doing so would convince a reasonable person that the conspiracist model is wrong (I would think that logic would have done it before it got to that point, but put that aside). Maybe he thinks there's info I'm not taking into account. OK. But instead of us examining different studies and drawing a conclusion or looking over the logic, what happens is he just takes the conspiracy up a notch. Now he's claiming that I know he's right but either I'm being paid to disagree with him or I'm just saying I disagree with him to upset him. There's no way any interesting or productive discussion can flow from that response. Another example was when I was arguing with Anung about CU. He accused me of being partisan, but I pointed out that on that issue, he agreed with Clinton and the Democratic platform and I disagreed with them. His response? He accused them of secretly disagreeing with their own platform and me of being paid to support their "real" position and oppose their stated one! It's madness.

I'm going to disagree with @Final Rehab here and say that there is simply no way a decent, honest person can avoid getting on the bad side of those kinds of people (and soda would be the third in their mini hivemind) unless they just don't engage with them or they agree with them on everything (which requires subnormal intellect or being misinformed). Look up how often people who disagree with them are presumed to be "pretending" to disagree with them.
 
Pickle Rick said:
Pot...kettle? This coming from Canada's biggest Trump supporter and shitposter? Lol
Click to expand...

No. I'm not a ban evasion account, complaining about other ban evasion accounts. Now before you go all "I just changed my name" deflection mode, @Peloquin was a ban evasion account.

The only mystery is who you were. I can't help but notice the similarities between you and @Bat Dad though. He was low intelligence liberal shitposter, who had an identity crisis, and made a second account inspired by "Rick and Morty". You're a low intelligence liberal shitposter, who had an identity crisis, and changed your name to a "Rick and Morty" inspired one.

Hmm...
 
HereticBD said:
No. I'm not a ban evasion account, complaining about other ban evasion accounts. Now before you go all "I just changed my name" deflection mode, @Peloquin was a ban evasion account.

The only mystery is who you were. I can't help but notice the similarities between you and @Bat Dad though. He was low intelligence liberal shitposter, who had an identity crisis, and made a second account inspired by "Rick and Morty". You're a low intelligence liberal shitposter, who had an identity crisis, and changed your name to a "Rick and Morty" inspired one.

Hmm...
Click to expand...
maybe you should worry about Trudeau or how you can become an american citizen since you love trump so much instead.
 
HereticBD said:
LOL.

Good comeback. Nice to have you back, @Bat Dad.
Click to expand...
Comeback? No clue what you are blathering about you crazy Canuck
giphy.webp
 
Last edited:
Jack V Savage said:
I'm bothered less by factual errors (even obvious ones) than by the way people (like Anung) just completely abandon any sense of right and wrong out of spite and certainty of the rightness of their cause, leading them not merely on the opposite side of an issue, but not even playing the same game.

Look at the example of campaign finance (that @VivaRevolution, someone I don't respect, brought up). My position, backed up by research, is that campaign donations don't lead to (and aren't intended to lead to) politicians changing their views on major issues. Candidates who agree with the donor in the first place get donations. So the way it works is if I'm a candidate who strongly opposes any form of gun control, either the NRA will find me or I can go to them and ask for some help. The way it doesn't work is the NRA sees that I support gun control and helps me win the election in exchange for me changing my position.

So that's just pretty much a factual dispute that can be resolved by looking at who gets donations and how often positions are changed, etc. I think doing so would convince a reasonable person that the conspiracist model is wrong (I would think that logic would have done it before it got to that point, but put that aside). Maybe he thinks there's info I'm not taking into account. OK. But instead of us examining different studies and drawing a conclusion or looking over the logic, what happens is he just takes the conspiracy up a notch. Now he's claiming that I know he's right but either I'm being paid to disagree with him or I'm just saying I disagree with him to upset him. There's no way any interesting or productive discussion can flow from that response. Another example was when I was arguing with Anung about CU. He accused me of being partisan, but I pointed out that on that issue, he agreed with Clinton and the Democratic platform and I disagreed with them. His response? He accused them of secretly disagreeing with their own platform and me of being paid to support their "real" position and oppose their stated one! It's madness.

I'm going to disagree with @Final Rehab here and say that there is simply no way a decent, honest person can avoid getting on the bad side of those kinds of people (and soda would be the third in their mini hivemind) unless they just don't engage with them or they agree with them on everything (which requires subnormal intellect or being misinformed). Look up how often people who disagree with them are presumed to be "pretending" to disagree with them.
Click to expand...

Can you link me to that discussion with Viva? I'd like to see that info
 
JosephDredd said:
Can you link me to that discussion with Viva? I'd like to see that info
Click to expand...

Kind of an ongoing thing across multiple threads so this is hard to answer. In terms of just looking at which model fits better (what I called the "conspiracist" model that campaign donations cause politicians to change their positions on issues vs. the "help the people who agree with you model"), here's something:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3f46/bbb80c8f79fffa5186e06892dbf318d86ee2.pdf
 
Jack V Savage said:
That CNN had a pro-Trump bias is objectively true, though. Note how you never see anyone even address the actual points in support of that. I don't know how it would even be possible.
Click to expand...
That was a pretty half-assed post on my part Jack, my bad. If it's cool with you I'm going to blame the excessive amount of champagne I was drinking yesterday, something about those damn bubbles.

Anyway, a better example for the point I was going for there would be the "Is Hillary pro- or anti-establishment" discussion. I believe you were actually the only one in that thread who went with the anti-establishment position. You stuck to your guns and I found myself impressed by the quality of your argument even if I wasn't 100% sold on it and I respect that type of thing. Not sure how I fumbled the compliment but there you go.

Jack V Savage said:
I'm bothered less by factual errors (even obvious ones) than by the way people (like Anung) just completely abandon any sense of right and wrong out of spite and certainty of the rightness of their cause, leading them not merely on the opposite side of an issue, but not even playing the same game.

Look at the example of campaign finance (that @VivaRevolution, someone I don't respect, brought up). My position, backed up by research, is that campaign donations don't lead to (and aren't intended to lead to) politicians changing their views on major issues. Candidates who agree with the donor in the first place get donations. So the way it works is if I'm a candidate who strongly opposes any form of gun control, either the NRA will find me or I can go to them and ask for some help. The way it doesn't work is the NRA sees that I support gun control and helps me win the election in exchange for me changing my position.

So that's just pretty much a factual dispute that can be resolved by looking at who gets donations and how often positions are changed, etc. I think doing so would convince a reasonable person that the conspiracist model is wrong (I would think that logic would have done it before it got to that point, but put that aside). Maybe he thinks there's info I'm not taking into account. OK. But instead of us examining different studies and drawing a conclusion or looking over the logic, what happens is he just takes the conspiracy up a notch. Now he's claiming that I know he's right but either I'm being paid to disagree with him or I'm just saying I disagree with him to upset him. There's no way any interesting or productive discussion can flow from that response. Another example was when I was arguing with Anung about CU. He accused me of being partisan, but I pointed out that on that issue, he agreed with Clinton and the Democratic platform and I disagreed with them. His response? He accused them of secretly disagreeing with their own platform and me of being paid to support their "real" position and oppose their stated one! It's madness.

I'm going to disagree with @Final Rehab here and say that there is simply no way a decent, honest person can avoid getting on the bad side of those kinds of people (and soda would be the third in their mini hivemind) unless they just don't engage with them or they agree with them on everything (which requires subnormal intellect or being misinformed). Look up how often people who disagree with them are presumed to be "pretending" to disagree with them.
Click to expand...
I see what you're saying here. Sometimes I'll admit I can be puzzled by your disdain for certain posters and as a matter of taste I think you can be a little heavy handed but when you take down someone who I don't care for it's pretty damned entertaining so hey, fire away. At any rate I don't always know the background of your exchanges with people.
 
Final Rehab said:
Anyway, a better example for the point I was going for there would be the "Is Hillary pro- or anti-establishment" discussion. I believe you were actually the only one in that thread who went with the anti-establishment position. You stuck to your guns and I found myself impressed by the quality of your argument even if I wasn't 100% sold on it and I respect that type of thing. Not sure how I fumbled the compliment but there you go.
Click to expand...

Thanks. The thread on it was another example of Anung's dishonesty. I never disputed that Clinton was part of the "establishment" as an identity (just going to an elite college and then being an elite lawyer puts her there without even getting to the political stuff) or that she had the support of the Democratic establishment (separate from The Establishment), but I noted that other than Sanders, there was no candidate whose *platform* was more anti-establishment. I made that distinction in the initial thread, but then Anung's poll question included an option for her *being* (part of) the establishment--thus completely eliminating the point and putting me on the "establishment" side that I was supposedly arguing against (since I said she was part of the establishment). Given the discussion that preceded that, I don't think it was a matter of him simply not being sharp enough to grasp the distinction--he deliberately avoided it.

Final Rehab said:
I see what you're saying here. Sometimes I'll admit I can be puzzled by your disdain for certain posters and as a matter of taste I think you can be a little heavy handed but when you take down someone who I don't care for it's pretty damned entertaining so hey, fire away. At any rate I don't always know the background of your exchanges with people.
Click to expand...

I don't even know how much background is necessary. Look at this thread. I gave an example of a type of argument that I dislike and name it after him. He storms in and starts throwing childish personal attacks at me and then---this is the kicker--puts forth the theory that I only mentioned his name in passing in order to enrage him and derail the thread (turning it into his stupid attacks and my superior responses) because I was "losing" a more-interesting, fun, and substantial discussion with another poster. That's the sick CT mind at work. It's not enough that he doesn't appreciate my naming the form of argument after him; it has to be a deliberate plot to troll him. Because people don't just disagree with or dislike him--they're evil monsters who only say they do for nefarious reasons.
 
Pickle Rick said:
maybe you should worry about Trudeau or how you can become an american citizen since you love trump so much instead.
Click to expand...

What in the Fuck of Fucks is this?

Might as well call him a poopy face
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LMP
  • Locked
Social The Official 2025 WR awards thread.
34 35 36
Replies
709
Views
9K
LMP
LMP

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,383
Messages
58,279,184
Members
175,991
Latest member
OctaLOL

Share this page

Back
Top