Official War Room Awards 2017

[Jack V Savage]

I see a few posts saying @panamaican is a great poster, which I find interesting because I view him as an over priced knockoff of @Gandhi.

They're both great, and as a premium poster, I get to read Pan's stuff for free.

 

[Gandhi]

I feel you. It was funny how they lost the greater argument so goddamn badly that most left. Naturally they blamed mods, liberals, whatever, but they simply got destroyed.

What's weird to me is that there is no equivalent of them on the left here. I think our furthest left regs are Trotsky, DickSarp, and Rational Poster- and all of them are sharp people. We have zero college-kid-type SJW weirdos. None. But we have, still, like 30 alt-bots. Down this year from like 100. It's a nonstop shitshow where they pretend that moderates and close-to-mainstream liberals are these straw college kids. They're arguing against people who don't actually exist on this forum. They equate all anti-Trump points of view with radical leftist ideology. Then the delusional centrists*** pretend there are "both sides." Nutty, nutty Nut Town. Mass ignoring of utter fucktard stupidity is clearly the best option, but it's too tempting to respond sometimes. Low-hanging fruit. So many really intelligent people here spend so much time on them.




***this means right wing libertarian

Great post

I would trade ultra with rational poster but otherwise spot on.

It's also interesting that while decrying extremism many on the alt r prefer at least the CTish form of lefty.

 

[Gandhi]

Damn it. Looks like this is just an internet thing I wasn't up to date on:

Ok just lol at that last one

 

[Gandhi]

Your post already took care of that.

Well the village idiot is back, this should be good for a laugh.....

 

[Gandhi]

Oh my

Never fails

 

[Gandhi]

I see a few posts saying @panamaican is a great poster, which I find interesting because I view him as an over priced knockoff of @Gandhi.


Also for those saying @Jack V Savage is the best poster in the war room, you people thought Clinton would win. Your opinions aren't valid.

While I appreciate the compliment (I think there is a compliment there). I rate both those posters over myself.

Also I supported Clinton.

@HomerThompson is my start at redemption

You are welcome WR!!!

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

I don't like the way you perfectly describe people's behavior and posts, I don't care that the masses are being manipulated, I don't care about all the evidence that supports your view, you sound mean when you respond to people that either like mass immigration, multiculturalism, think white people are privileged, think white people deserve hatred towards them so they can feel how black people felt during slavery, believe white people have no culture, think white people are responsible for hoodlife, think the only color we should see is white, support feminism or in your face LGBTs. So because of that I think you're the worst poster.

See this is how we used you in the campaign , you can't help yourself, you go off on these nutty tangents no matter what the topic.

You got my vote for worst poster you sensitive snowflake.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Was really, truly disappointed that his post didn't contain "cultural marxism," but at least it had like 8 "white people" mentions.

You give him far too much credit , he doesn't use big words like cultural marxism lol

 

[Jack V Savage]

Best poster- this goes to guys who have challenged my beliefs and got me to reconsider my positions.

@Jack V Savage

When I first came to the War Room I had some misconceptions about entitlements and Jack pointed me to some stats and reports that changed my mind.

He takes the time to show the numbers and substance behind his posts.

Thanks, and I'd say that changing your mind based on looking at stats says at least as much positively about you as it does about the fellow who pointed you to the stats.

For instance, there is a really terrible poster here (who I will not name) who has a moronic Randian view on entitlements/redistribution that is completely ideological/pseudo-moral and has no regard for whether following those views would almost certainly lead to economic collapse: it's all just objectivist meritocratic delusions.

What's really bad about that is that the guy (I think I know who you're referring to, but there are lots of candidates) also realizes that you're not going to persuade anyone that way (suicide cults hold the big reveal until people have already been thoroughly indoctrinated) so he will argue that right-wing libertarianism will lead to good outcomes, but he doesn't care if he's right or wrong about that. So the argument is inevitably going to suck. One party to the discussion is trying to examine things on their merits and the other party is just bullshitting (i.e., is indifferent to the truth of his claims). That's one of the three main categories of pointless arguments here, the other two being the Anung special "you believe X," "no I don't, I believe Y because ..." "no, you believe X." and the other Anung special, "fuck you, that's my argument."

 

[Higus]

I'm struggling to remember some of the stuff that happened earlier in the year, so this is based off of more recent interactions.

• Best All Around Poster: @Quipling He's been excellent at summarizing all the late year forum drama for people who aren't here all the time. He's a great poster, makes knowledgeable opinions and analysis too.
  
• Worst All Around Poster: @Palis low energy DNB of a PotWR. SAD.
  
• Best TS: Lot's of good ones. @Arkain2K @JosephDredd @VivaRevolution @PolishHeadlock
  
• Best Thread: I liked the "Does God Exist" debate between @m52nickerson and @Thurisaz
  
• Worst TS: @Goonerview
  
• Best Liberal Shill: @Pickle Rick
  
• Best Conservative Hack: @TheComebackKid
  
• Least Biased: It's hard to stand out in the middle. @Cubo de Sangre get's my nod
  
• Best Quote: "He shouldn't have _____, that was the wrong thing to do."
  
• Best Use of Media: @HomerThompson with the hotdog gifs

 

[Trotsky]

Thanks, and I'd say that changing your mind based on looking at stats says at least as much positively about you as it does about the fellow who pointed you to the stats.



What's really bad about that (why I have an issue with ideologues) is that the guy (I think I know who you're referring to, but there are lots of candidates) also realizes that you're not going to persuade anyone that way (suicide cults hold the big reveal until people have already been thoroughly indoctrinated) so he will argue that right-wing libertarianism will lead to good outcomes, but he doesn't care if he's right or wrong about that. So the argument is inevitably going to suck. One party to the discussion is trying to examine things on their merits and the other party is just bullshitting (i.e., is indifferent to the truth of his claims). That's one of the three main categories of pointless arguments here, the other two being the Anung special "you believe X," "no I don't, I believe Y because ..." "no, you believe X." and the other Anung special, "fuck you, that's my argument."

My biggest problem with this poster's position is that it is nearly unanimously adopted by the same persons that worship the natural inevitability of capitalist economic development and who, merely by vaguely praising capitalism, fancy themselves pragmatists. However, when pressed to engage on redistributive policies that are necessary for optimizing, or even prolonging the viability of, that capitalist system, it's all "you're not entitled to other people's money!!!" and other reductive moralisms.

It's distinctly more grotesque than the (still-ignorant) true right-libertarian types who pontificate about the impermanence of monopolies, because at least those persons concede some short and long-term downsides to their ideology, even if they hugely misunderstand their scope and their creation of other economic and social problems. But the above discussed persons just don't care to even fathom the consequences of their position.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

@HomerThompson is getting a lot of love for the hotdog gifs but I want to thank him for introducing me to GOAT gif Of All time.

 

[Jack V Savage]

My biggest problem with this poster's position is that it is nearly unanimously adopted by the same persons that worship the natural inevitability of capitalist economic development and who, merely by vaguely praising capitalism, fancy themselves pragmatists. However, when pressed to engage on redistributive policies that are necessary for optimizing, or even prolonging the viability of, that capitalist system, it's all "you're not entitled to other people's money!!!" and other reductive moralisms.

I had a discussion with another guy yesterday who simply could not wrap his head around the idea that ownership is legally determined and thus that that saying is meaningless however you interpret it. Either "you're not entitled to money that other people are entitled to" or "I don't think you're morally entitled to money that I think should be entitled to other people." The "non-aggression principle" is another one--just a rhetorical trick masquerading as an argument. If you define "initiating aggression" not as initiating physical contact but as violating property rights, the same could apply to any system of property rights and says nothing about what laws we should have. Tax collection would be "defensive force" if you accept that the public has a share in the land so the whole argument is whether the public has a legitimate stake, while NAP proponents insist that the NAP invalidates the idea of a public stake. Polanyi's "the Great Transformation" should be more widely read.

 

[Fawlty]

I see a few posts saying @panamaican is a great poster, which I find interesting because I view him as an over priced knockoff of @Gandhi.

Huh. This is curious to me because I've found that pan makes some really strong arguments that leave me unable to effectively reply, or require me to do a lot more reading and thinking over time. Like, I need to reevaluate the way I think about things longer-term because I've overlooked something. To me that's pretty rare and valuable on a karate forum.

 

[HomerThompson]

They're both great, and as a premium poster, I get to read Pan's stuff for free.

 

[Limbo Pete]

@HomerThompson is getting a lot of love for the hotdog gifs but I want to thank him for introducing me to GOAT gif Of All time.

It's soooooooo fucking good

 

[HomerThompson]

While I appreciate the compliment (I think there is a compliment there). I rate both those posters over myself.

Also I supported Clinton.

@HomerThompson is my start at redemption

You are welcome WR!!!

You guys are all going to be super pissed when I reveal I'm an Alt-Reich plant after inauguration.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

I'm amazed that @Pickle Rick is getting so many nominations as biggest liberal shill. I've never seen whatever you guys are seeing.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm amazed that @Pickle Rick is getting so many nominations as biggest liberal shill. I've never seen whatever you guys are seeing.

I honestly don't even really know who that is. I've seen the name, but can't recall anything about him (no offense if he's good).

 

[Fawlty]

I honestly don't even really know who that is. I've seen the name, but can't recall anything about him (no offense if he's good).

I'm under the assumption that he's Peloquin. And not a bad poster (makes me laugh a lot), just unflinching in his bias. Our "liberal hacks" are nowhere near the level of conerva-hacks these days. Sorry @Pickle Rick, probably unfair to nom you.