POTWR 2019: State of the War Room #2

[abiG]

The flat earth thread was actually quite interesting, and although many people didn't post or were thread banned, these were the lowest IQ posters on the forum who clearly could not even define things like 'the scientific method,' 'empirical,' 'replicable,' etc..

And it was no big loss as a ton of really good information became available and was not lost in the endless trolling of the most ignorant.

 

[kpt018]

Crude characterization aside, all that was explained. At this point it's pretty clear you're the guy who can't handle feedback.

Cheers.

Coming from the guy who banned people who didn't like the flat earth thread....

 

[LMP]

The flat earth thread was actually quite interesting, and although many people didn't post or were thread banned, these were the lowest IQ posters on the forum who clearly could not even define things like 'the scientific method,' 'empirical,' 'replicable,' etc..

And it was no big loss as a ton of really good information became available and was not lost in the endless trolling of the most ignorant.

There was no good faith argument for pro flat earth. It is a constant moving of the goal post. You have to be dumb or a troll to even try and make an argument in favor of that trash. Tell me again which one are you.

 

[sickc0d3r]

You're doing well with what you have to work with, @Cubo de Sangre . The main problem, as I see it, is the participants need to put in a fair bit of effort based on the environment you are trying to create and the platform you are providing, and the War Room regulars most likely to be willing to put that kind of work into a discussion are folks you have an adversarial relationship with. It is what it is. Still plenty of reason to believe a topic will come along that draws a lot interest and ends up being fun.

For my part, while I do not fit comfortably into the intellectual discussions group, when there's a topic I like and I can add some value, I will try to be a good citizen and participate more frequently. I'll do that in support of what I think is you taking an honest stab at fulfilling your campaign promises. Ask not what your country can do for you, and all that rot.

Most of all, try have some fun with it, bud. This ain't rocket surgery.

 

[Higus]

You're doing well with what you have to work with, @Cubo de Sangre . The main problem, as I see it, is the participants need to put in a fair bit of effort based on the environment you are trying to create and the platform you are providing, and the War Room regulars most likely to be willing to put that kind of work into a discussion are folks you have an adversarial relationship with. It is what it is. Still plenty of reason to believe a topic will come along that draws a lot interest and ends up being fun.

For my part, while I do not fit comfortably into the intellectual discussions group, when there's a topic I like and I can add some value, I will try to be a good citizen and participate more frequently. I'll do that in support of what I think is you taking an honest stab at fulfilling your campaign promises. Ask not what your country can do for you, and all that rot.

Most of all, try have some fun with it, bud. This ain't rocket surgery.

You're on to something here. Its worth noting that although he ran on a moderate platform, his voting base was largely comprised of right wing loons and shit posters. That's not Cubo's fault, but the well was poisoned from the start. That kind of crowd is not conductive to the thoughtful, good faith discussion platform he was striving for.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I don't think you're doing a bad job, and even though the Flat Earth thread was silly I thought it was pretty entertaining so who the fuck cares imo (it's not like every thread has to be super serious), but you do get that you're being a turd here, right? MiniCraque is offering a reasonable criticism that he seems to hold in good faith, and you're responding with "go pound sand" more or less.

I haven't personally been unfairly censored or whatever in your threads, and I don't have any evidence of anyone else having it happen to them either, and I haven't had any issue with any of the thread themes, but your handling of this thread leaves a lot to be desired.

if you want reread his thread on 'Platform'.

Look how quick he is to label others as lying or being 'unwilling to admit' because they disagree with him. Not the types of terms you want to throw out if your goal is to avoid escalation or promote civility. and then on the flip side when those others say a view being expressed by others is ' asinine' or push their disagreements with him he moves to the not so veiled threat of banning them from the 'censorship' thread as ironic as it is.

ignore my posts and exchanges with him if you want and just look to @Jack V Savage , @Fawlty , and @BarryDillon, who all call him out in that thread for that type of behaviour.

And I am actually fine with that type of behaviour from Cubo as long as he does not then resort to threatening others who respond in kind.

So is he doing a bad job? Probably not? But could he actually listen to and learn from some valid critique's in a thread where he purports to want that? yes.

But I think it clear he made this just wanting accolades and had no intention to accept any critique. His biggest mistake was not making this an official POTWR thread where he could ban any such respondents and only allow positive critiques. I think he has tried to fix that.

 

[Gregolian]

his voting base was largely comprised of right wing loons and shit posters.

 

[Gutter Chris]

Since @MiniCraque is non-compelling, here's a new dedication. This one goes out to the Cubo/@Gutter Chris constituency.

Thats almost what my voice sounds like now

Its been a hard year so far cubo but im hanging in there as best as i can

 

[BarryDillon]

You're on to something here. Its worth noting that although he ran on a moderate platform, his voting base was largely comprised of right wing loons and shit posters. That's not Cubo's fault, but the well was poisoned from the start. That kind of crowd is not conductive to the thoughtful, good faith discussion platform he was striving for.

He's incapable of having thoughtful, good faith discussions anyway.

@Cubo de Sangre

 

[Jack V Savage]

if you want reread his thread on 'Platform'.

Look how quick he is to label others as lying or being 'unwilling to admit' because they disagree with him. Not the types of terms you want to through out if your goal is to avoid escalation or promote civility. and then on the flip side when those others say a view being expressed by others is ' asinine' or push their disagreements with him he moves to the not so veiled threat of banning them from the 'censorship' thread as ironic as it is.

ignore my posts and exchanges with him if you want and just look to @Jack V Savage , @Fawlty , and @BarryDillon, who all call him out in that thread for that type of behaviour.

That was one of the few presidential threads that had some good discussion (though Cubo's contribution was weak--I think he was a little over his head and was arguing dishonestly as a result) until Cubo got upset about how he was looking and shut it down.

 

[MiniCraque]

Y'all just mad and talking shit though.

 

[abiG]

There was no good faith argument for pro flat earth. It is a constant moving of the goal post. You have to be dumb or a troll to even try and make an argument in favor of that trash. Tell me again which one are you.

I'm the one that looks at things from the perspective of a scientist.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're on to something here. Its worth noting that although he ran on a moderate platform, his voting base was largely comprised of right wing loons and shit posters. That's not Cubo's fault, but the well was poisoned from the start. That kind of crowd is not conductive to the thoughtful, good faith discussion platform he was striving for.

Yeah, good points both of you. I think Cubo did contribute to it. At least on my end, I was open to his candidacy (supportive, even, early). Then he reacted in a bizarrely hostile way to respectful criticism, and started courting the likes of SBJJ and others who are incapable of good discussion and unwilling to try to do anything more than partisan shitposting.

"Largely" /= "exclusively."

 

[MikeMcMann]

That was one of the few presidential threads that had some good discussion (though Cubo's contribution was weak--I think he was a little over his head and was arguing dishonestly as a result) until Cubo got upset about how he was looking and shut it down.

Yup. but I think he had this moved from the general forum to become an official POTWR thread so he can start banning those who disagree so be careful with the labelling of 'dishonest' as that is exactly the type term (appropriate or not) that if used by others he threatens to ban them.

That despite the fact we can quote him and show he has no problem challenging others honesty, suggesting they can not be genuine in their disagreement with him and it must be dishonesty or they would agree with him.

 

[BarryDillon]

I'm the one that looks at things from the perspective of a scientist.

 

[Gregolian]

I'm the one that looks at things from the perspective of a scientist.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yup. but I think he had this moved from the general forum to become an official POTWR thread so he can start banning those who disagree so be careful with the labelling of 'dishonest' as that is exactly the type term (appropriate or not) that if used by others he threatens to ban them.

That despite the fact we can quote him and show he has no problem challenging others honesty, suggesting they can not be genuine in their disagreement with him and it must be dishonesty or they would agree with him.

But look at 219. The dictionary definition that Cubo provided did not back up his claim. I grant that he might genuinely disagree with that (though I think he's pretty clearly wrong), but surely he was aware that my argument was not that the dictionary definition was "wrong." By framing it as if it were, I think he can be objectively said to have been dishonest in that exchange, and the motivation was as I described it. So he can be upset about my bluntness, but I think it's a simple fact that he was arguing dishonestly as a result of him being over his head.

 

[MikeMcMann]

But look at 219. The dictionary definition that Cubo provided did not back up his claim. I grant that he might genuinely disagree with that (though I think he's pretty clearly wrong), but surely he was aware that my argument was not that the dictionary definition was "wrong." By framing it as if it were, I think he can be objectively said to have been dishonest in that exchange, and the motivation was as I described it. So he can be upset about my bluntness, but I think it's a simple fact that he was arguing dishonestly as a result of him being over his head.

Look, I am the most stubborn guy around so any stones I throw here are coming right back at me. But Cubo is not far off.

in that thread, you and others rightly pointed out that he does not control a singular definition and its application in the context of its usage on that topic. You were correct. But Cubo had staked out ground on that singular very literal and yes, incorrect definition and to admit that would be to yield the entire premise of the thread as wrong. So no matter how often he was correct rightly about his misapplying the literal definition he was never going to cede that.

the thread had nowhere to go without first identifying the proper definition and then applying it. Something he was not willing to debate instead declaring that he had the one and only true definition, facts and accuracy be damned.


Also I think that was my first POTWR thread I had contributed to. I did not break a single rule of the thread but got banned basically because i agreed with @Fawlty when he pointed out Cubo was breaking his own rules and i continued to make my arguments showing Cubo was wrong which frustrated him. Looking back at my posts in that thread I was a paragon of good behaviour. <45>

 

[Lord Coke]

If anyone wondered how feckless the "resistance" (tm) is here you go. Samantha Bee the "woke" white liberal woman shows her centrist and anti-Semitic core to everyone.

 

[LMP]

I'm the one that looks at things from the perspective of a scientist.

Your willingness to completely disregard established science, in exchange for the prove it at home method is truly enlightening.