War Room Lounge v78: Figure someone will make a thread eventually.

[Social Distance Warrior]

I think you're doing a great job @LogicalInsanity and so far you are dominating this bet. Dont fall for hacks cheap tricks.

Thanks Sirgay.

there have been a couple close calls, but I'm digging in deep here.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So link to the shots he takes at unnamed people?

I feel like liking posts is still on the terms of said deal.

For example, this:

this is how far political conversation has deteriorated.

several here are justifying shit, rude behavior at a non political event mind you, because...."Trump started it. he's a bad man."

You can essentially reduce their arguments to this.

Don't think it necessarily violates the terms, but it does represent a reversion to dishonest, trollish hackery that he was trying to move past.

 

[Jack V Savage]

^^^

"Like" rustled.

You are what you are. Angry teen-aged gamer-type poster. You don't try to hide it or pretend to be a man. But LI had been making moves toward trying to be better than that, but he's losing it.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

They attacked my team! Now they're biased!



Holy fuck....ROFL.

Ladies and gentlemen: Another great post from Heretic.

Looks like @LogicalInsanity is reverting back to full troll mode. Just being cowardly about it.

Speaking of media bias, what the heck is this?:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-corporations.html

The whole thing is terrible, a hit piece in the news section (and something they'd never do for a Republican candidate), but this was great



Hundreds of thousands of dollars over roughly two decades?

I mean c'mon dude...

I'm not the one trolling here, especially with your claim, "they would never do that to a GOP candidate."

do you really believe that? "never do that do a GOP candidate?"

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

For example, this:



Don't think it necessarily violates the terms, but it does represent a reversion to dishonest, trollish hackery that he was trying to move past.

it was silly.

there were people in that thread justifying throwing someone out of a concert because, "Trump started it."

that was not trolling.

 

[JDragon]

I mean c'mon dude...

I'm not the one trolling here, especially with your claim, "they would never do that to a GOP candidate."

do you really believe that? "never do that do a GOP candidate?"

I think he meant 'only paying 10k a year'

 

[HereticBD]

You are what you are. Angry teen-aged gamer-type poster. You don't try to hide it or pretend to be a man. But LI had been making moves toward trying to be better than that, but he's losing it.

In other words, he has different opinions than yours. We all know the company you keep around here, and it's certainly not short of shit posters, so spare us your posturing like you give a shit about anything to do with posting style, or liking certain posts. Your criticism of LI comes down to one thing, and one thing only. He's not in your tribe.

*yawn*

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

I think he meant 'only paying 10k a year'

@Jack V Savage could you clarify what you meant by that comment?

if I misconstrued your statement then I apologize.
if you are arguing that they wouldn't do a hit piece on GOP candidate then I strongly disagree.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I mean c'mon dude...

I'm not the one trolling here, especially with your claim, "they would never do that to a GOP candidate."

do you really believe that? "never do that do a GOP candidate?"

Of course. You think the NYT would post that a GOP candidate made hundreds of thousands of dollars over roughly two decades (so between $10K and $50K a year) working as a lawyer as if it were a bad thing? If you've seen anything remotely like that ever, please link. There's a clear double standard. Similar to how they do all these pieces about how Trump voters still like Trump but never the opposite.

This was great, recently:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/us/impeachment-public-opinion.html?auth=login-email&login=email

https://www.thewrap.com/ny-times-un...ame-trump-supporters-instead-of-swing-voters/

 

[Trotsky]

Speaking of media bias, what the heck is this?:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-corporations.html

The whole thing is terrible, a hit piece in the news section (and something they'd never do for a Republican candidate), but this was great



Hundreds of thousands of dollars over roughly two decades?

Obviously you're right that that sort of unremarkable behavior would never ever be framed in terms of excess or corruption for a Republican candidate or figure, but, to supplement or explain your point, it isn't because of a concerted bias for Republicans or against Democrats. Rather, I think it's because of the culture of the parties, the ideology of the parties, and most of all the standards of conduct that the voters of each party hold politicians to and the subsequently huge disparity in conflicts of interest and corruption between the Democrats and Republicans. And the media seeking to give the appearance of objectivity.

That is, there is exponentially more corruption and conflicts of interest on the right (this is natural, since their ideology is to do the bidding of private power and give private power as much influence over public life as possible), so they necessarily get reported on in larger volume. There is a corresponding desire to increase the volume of such reports on the left for the sake of apparent neutrality.

 

[Jack V Savage]

it was silly.

there were people in that thread justifying throwing someone out of a concert because, "Trump started it."

that was not trolling.

Who are you referring to? What posts? Why not address posts directly instead of fabricating positions that are easier to attack and attributing them to unnamed people?

@Jack V Savage could you clarify what you meant by that comment?

if I misconstrued your statement then I apologize.
if you are arguing that they wouldn't do a hit piece on GOP candidate then I strongly disagree.

A "hit piece" is vague, but there is a major double standard, and I don't think we've seen anything remotely as sleazy directed toward a Republican candidate (Clinton obviously got even worse).

 

[Jack V Savage]

Obviously you're right that that sort of unremarkable behavior would never ever be framed in terms of excess or corruption for a Republican candidate or figure, but, to supplement or explain your point, it isn't because of a concerted bias for Republicans or against Democrats. Rather, I think it's because of the culture of the parties, the ideology of the parties, and most of all the standards of conduct that the voters of each party hold politicians to and the subsequently huge disparity in conflicts of interest and corruption between the Democrats and Republicans. And the media seeking to give the appearance of objectivity.

That is, there is exponentially more corruption and conflicts of interest on the right (this is natural, since their ideology is to do the bidding of private power and give private power as much influence over public life as possible), so they necessarily get reported on in larger volume. There is a corresponding desire to increase the volume of such reports on the left for the sake of apparent neutrality.

The disagreement I have here is that when we talk about "bias," people tend to think it's Farmer/Heretic/SBJJ-style "I'll lie to defend my party" stuff. But that's not what bias normally is. The anti-Democratic/pro-Republican MSM bias is more along the lines of being afraid of criticism from the right and proud of criticism from the left because the right complains a lot more (likely in a deliberate effort to get this effect) and holding the parties to vastly different standards because a lot of behavior that is seen as normal or expected from Republicans is seen as egregious violations of norms from Democrats.

 

[Trotsky]

 

[Jack V Savage]

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCW...ntral-fallacy-the-worst-argument-in-the-world

This should be taught in schools.

 

[Trotsky]

The disagreement I have here is that when we talk about "bias," people tend to think it's Farmer/Heretic/SBJJ-style "I'll lie to defend my party" stuff. But that's not what bias normally is. The anti-Democratic/pro-Republican MSM bias is more along the lines of being afraid of criticism from the right and proud of criticism from the left because the right complains a lot more (likely in a deliberate effort to get this effect) and holding the parties to vastly different standards because a lot of behavior that is seen as normal or expected from Republicans is seen as egregious violations of norms from Democrats.

I don't think that's a misunderstanding that is going to be remedied any time soon. There's a certain addiction to the sort of ludicrousness of certain right-wing narratives (not just the "the media is lying to attack Republicans," but also on topics like parents of would-be-trans children). It produces a kind of false ethical contrast, where the other side is so crazy and illogical that you don't really need to think about the issue beyond bringing attention to their craziness.

A "hit piece" is vague, but there is a major double standard, and I don't think we've seen anything remotely as sleazy directed toward a Republican candidate (Clinton obviously got even worse).

I also think there is (but should be more) regret over how loud the corruption narrative per amplification from the left. Obviously, I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton. I don't care for her politics or for who she is as a person, and I do absolutely think she's more corrupted than Bernie Sanders without a doubt. But allowing her to be situated anywhere near the Republicans in re corruption in the public eye was and is just crazy.

 

[Sketch]

Hack calling people teenage video game posters is not very nice.

I wonder if him and Fraser have played video games together recently? Maybe some 2k19

 

[Trotsky]

For real. Other than supposed long healthcare lines, how is any of this bad. High speed rails to Alaska and Hawaii (!!), putting the economy in the hands and benefit of the workers through unions, rebuilding infrastructure, having an entire department devoted to taxing the rich

 

[Jack V Savage]

I also think there is (but should be more) regret over how loud the corruption narrative per amplification from the left. Obviously, I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton. I don't care for her politics or for who she is as a person, and I do absolutely think she's more corrupted than Bernie Sanders without a doubt. But allowing her to be situated anywhere near the Republicans in re corruption in the public eye was and is just crazy.

The breathless coverage of the stupid email story was one thing, but also stuff like this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/style/hillary-clinton-hand-on-heart-michelle-obama.html

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...y-Clinton-had-a-heart-20-years-ago-and-a-hand

Clinton just makes a gesture that she's made for decades, and the NY Times writes:

It’s a subliminal message of sincerity that some language experts consider contrived.

Bill McGowan, a communications coach and chief executive of Clarity Media Group, calls the hand-on-heart motion “the gesture du jour.” He said he has noticed that other politicians have adopted the habit, and he doesn’t think it’s entirely artless.

No retraction was published after numerous people posted tons of old photos of her doing the same thing.

 

[HockeyBjj]

@Trotsky D&D (the game of thrones writers) reportedly off the next star wars trilogy. So they won't get to ruin that (even if the last jedi kinda give impression its already ruined)

 

[Prokofievian]

Lol. I wonder how many people think Ben has a good argument here.