Civility Poll
-
I honestly do NOT think that picture was photoshopped. It's looks real to me. Why don't you ask Adobe?
-
Here we go with your statement that it was "most-likely photoshopped." You don't know that. The evidence otherwise suggests that it should definitely be investigated and not brushed off as a conspiracy theory, especially given the fact that Soros has funded Antifa and all these ads on Craigslist. You are making insinuations and you just need to be more biased and question before just believing.
No, it's not "most likely photoshopped," it is photoshopped. I've seen that pic and it's being floated around on right-wing conspiracy sites. The actual images and video footage of him in the background clearly shows him marching with the white supremacists and as a result, AG Sessions is investigating the incident as a civil rights violation case. This is clearly an attempt to take this thread :ot: therefore I am not replying to you anymore about this and your blatant derailment will become that much more apparent. This thread is about civility and the need to stop blatant derailment and deflection, not about the Charlottesville case.
-
You say it IS photoshopped, without any proof. That is ridiculous. "I'm not responding to you anymore." That's the problem. You make silly statements and then all of a sudden when it's found out to be insanity you backtrack and disappear. You're sick. You're losing. You're done.
-
You say it's photoshopped, for sure, so where is your proof? You can't just say something and expect us to just believe you, bro.
-
Calling Trump a racist, fully justifies pointing out that the person you voted for (Hillary) worships at least 3 known racists.
As far as I know, Trump didn't say that there are some good racists. He said that there are some good people on both sides; left vs right.
-
As far as I know, Trump didn't say that there are some good racists.
You're going off of "as far as you know" while I'm going off of the actual words that came out of his mouth on LIVE TV.
Now back to the point of this thread, can we come to an agreement that direct attempts at deflection and/or derailment should be an automatic admission of a failed argument? Can we also come to an agreement that mass spam posting about Harvard cancer study conspiracy theories or other things that have absolutely NOTHING to do with politics be moved to other sections? We should work toward some sort of mutual conclusion so that this civility thread can finally be closed.
-
As far as I know, Trump didn't say that there are some good racists.
You're going off of "as far as you know" while I'm going off of the actual words that came out of his mouth on LIVE TV.
Now back to the point of this thread, can we come to an agreement that direct attempts at deflection and/or derailment should be an automatic admission of a failed argument? Can we also come to an agreement that mass spam posting about Harvard cancer study conspiracy theories or other things that have absolutely NOTHING to do with politics be moved to other sections? We should work toward some sort of mutual conclusion so that this civility thread can finally be closed.
You aren't doing yourself any favors by trying to distance yourself from Hilary, Obama, Pelosi, and Schumer on one hand.. while at the same time flooding the group with those 4 fake monopoly cards of Hilary, Obama, Pelosi, and Shumer.
-
As far as I know, Trump didn't say that there are some good racists.
You're going off of "as far as you know" while I'm going off of the actual words that came out of his mouth on LIVE TV.
Now back to the point of this thread, can we come to an agreement that direct attempts at deflection and/or derailment should be an automatic admission of a failed argument? Can we also come to an agreement that mass spam posting about Harvard cancer study conspiracy theories or other things that have absolutely NOTHING to do with politics be moved to other sections? We should work toward some sort of mutual conclusion so that this civility thread can finally be closed.
You aren't doing yourself any favors by trying to distance yourself from Hilary, Obama, Pelosi, and Schumer on one hand.. while at the same time flooding the group with those 4 fake monopoly cards of Hilary, Obama, Pelosi, and Shumer.
Those cards are to put an end to deflection; hence why the word "deflect" appears in each one. Unless the discussion is directly about them or valid comparisons can be made using them, deflecting to them is an intention to derail an argument and an automatic self-admission of a flawed or failed argument. This isn't about me "doing myself any favors" this about you not being able to make your argument without invoking irrelevant people into said argument. If we're discussing the lies of President Obama and you go off on a rant about Hillary Clinton using bleach or Michelle Obama being a man, that is derailment and an automatic admission of having a flawed or failing argument. Why not state the lies, debate them and conclude your argument? Why is it so hard for some of you to make your argument and defend it without deflection and/or derailment? I still have yet to receive an answer from any of you on that question.
-
As far as I know, Trump didn't say that there are some good racists.
You're going off of "as far as you know" while I'm going off of the actual words that came out of his mouth on LIVE TV.
Now back to the point of this thread, can we come to an agreement that direct attempts at deflection and/or derailment should be an automatic admission of a failed argument? Can we also come to an agreement that mass spam posting about Harvard cancer study conspiracy theories or other things that have absolutely NOTHING to do with politics be moved to other sections? We should work toward some sort of mutual conclusion so that this civility thread can finally be closed.
You aren't doing yourself any favors by trying to distance yourself from Hilary, Obama, Pelosi, and Schumer on one hand.. while at the same time flooding the group with those 4 fake monopoly cards of Hilary, Obama, Pelosi, and Shumer.
Those cards are to put an end to deflection; hence why the word "deflect" appears in each one. Unless the discussion is directly about them or valid comparisons can be made using them, deflecting to them is an intention to derail an argument and an automatic self-admission of a flawed or failed argument. This isn't about me "doing myself any favors" this about you not being able to make your argument without invoking irrelevant people into said argument. If we're discussing the lies of President Obama and you go off on a rant about Hillary Clinton using bleach or Michelle Obama being a man, that is derailment and an automatic admission of having a flawed or failing argument. Why not state the lies, debate them and conclude your argument? Why is it so hard for some of you to make your argument and defend it without deflection and/or derailment? I still have yet to receive an answer from any of you on that question.
You keep mentioning Trump saying something on Live TV.. yet you never provide a link to it. Youtube has links to everything that Trump says.
You think everything is misdirection. You are like a narrow minded horse with blinders on who can't deal with anything unless it is spoonfed to you. It reminds me of someone with alzheimers. I am quite the opposite. I keep an open mind and constantly find relevance in the strangest places. Just last night while searching for some information about that idiot in Charlottesville, I stumbled upon a site that archives social networking sites so that even if someone's account gets removed, it still exists in their archive. That archive will help me get someone out of prison who has been in prison for 5 years on false charges.
-
As far as I know, Trump didn't say that there are some good racists.
You're going off of "as far as you know" while I'm going off of the actual words that came out of his mouth on LIVE TV.
Now back to the point of this thread, can we come to an agreement that direct attempts at deflection and/or derailment should be an automatic admission of a failed argument? Can we also come to an agreement that mass spam posting about Harvard cancer study conspiracy theories or other things that have absolutely NOTHING to do with politics be moved to other sections? We should work toward some sort of mutual conclusion so that this civility thread can finally be closed.
You aren't doing yourself any favors by trying to distance yourself from Hilary, Obama, Pelosi, and Schumer on one hand.. while at the same time flooding the group with those 4 fake monopoly cards of Hilary, Obama, Pelosi, and Shumer.
Those cards are to put an end to deflection; hence why the word "deflect" appears in each one. Unless the discussion is directly about them or valid comparisons can be made using them, deflecting to them is an intention to derail an argument and an automatic self-admission of a flawed or failed argument. This isn't about me "doing myself any favors" this about you not being able to make your argument without invoking irrelevant people into said argument. If we're discussing the lies of President Obama and you go off on a rant about Hillary Clinton using bleach or Michelle Obama being a man, that is derailment and an automatic admission of having a flawed or failing argument. Why not state the lies, debate them and conclude your argument? Why is it so hard for some of you to make your argument and defend it without deflection and/or derailment? I still have yet to receive an answer from any of you on that question.
You keep mentioning Trump saying something on Live TV.. yet you never provide a link to it. Youtube has links to everything that Trump says.
You think everything is misdirection. You are like a narrow minded horse with blinders on who can't deal with anything unless it is spoonfed to you. It reminds me of someone with alzheimers. I am quite the opposite. I keep an open mind and constantly find relevance in the strangest places. Just last night while searching for some information about that idiot in Charlottesville, I stumbled upon a site that archives social networking sites so that even if someone's account gets removed, it still exists in their archive. That archive will help me get someone out of prison who has been in prison for 5 years on false charges.
Nope, I am only talking about direct attempts at derailment. I am not talking about "finding relevance in the strangest places" or whatever you're talking about. There have been direct attempts to derail discussions and that needs to stop. Invoking the names of irrelevant people into discussions that have absolutely ZERO to do with those people with the hope of stopping that discussion is derailment. It's not misdirection, it is purposeful derailment and it is wrong and childish to do. Example:
Me: X-person did this horrible thing. I condemn this horrible thing and this is my argument for why I condemn this horrible thing.
Someone attempting derailment: Well Y-person completely unrelated to this situation is a bad person; therefore, this discussion should stop.
Why not (1) explain why you believe what X-person did was not horrible and/or (2) call into question my reasoning for condemning X-person? If someone else who isn't related to the discussion has done the exact same thing or has spoken on the instance, then bringing them up would NOT be derailment. But when you bring up someone not tied to the discussion at all whatsoever without even explaining how they are relevant, that is a derailment attempt.
-
But when you bring up someone not tied to the discussion at all whatsoever without even explaining how they are relevant, that is a derailment attempt.
Here is why you are wrong. You have consistently attacked Trump, yet refuse to acknowledge the actions of anybody else in history. You ignore and exclude the mistakes, controversies, scandals, lies, and bad decision of everybody else in history. You give a clean slate to outrageous failures such as Hillary, Obama, Pelosi, and Schumer.. while at the same time invoking them to attack Trump at every opportunity. This is why you and other moonbats have no credibilty.
-
As far as I know, Trump didn't say that there are some good racists.
You're going off of "as far as you know" while I'm going off of the actual words that came out of his mouth on LIVE TV.
Now back to the point of this thread, can we come to an agreement that direct attempts at deflection and/or derailment should be an automatic admission of a failed argument? Can we also come to an agreement that mass spam posting about Harvard cancer study conspiracy theories or other things that have absolutely NOTHING to do with politics be moved to other sections? We should work toward some sort of mutual conclusion so that this civility thread can finally be closed.
I have seen videos of Trump speaking on recent events and I have not seen him say that there are good racists. He said that there are good people on both sides; left vs right.
Please provide a link to him saying that racists are good.
Also, Hillary said that anyone who didn't vote for her was "deplorable".
-
Leftists are still blindly downvoting their enemies. How is that "civil"?
-
I don't think it's just 'leftists' with a concerted campaign of destroying the reputations of their enemies
-
I don't think it's just 'leftists' with a concerted campaign of destroying the reputations of their enemies
The leftists.. like the red lined moonbats, have no reputation to destroy. They do it to themselves.
-
I don't think it's just 'leftists' with a concerted campaign of destroying the reputations of their enemies
I've already talked about this, countless times.
It's a tit for tat situation.
HOWEVER, it's the leftists that are claiming that they have the moral high ground, while still manipulating the approval system. You can't be on the moral high ground when you yourself is doing the "evil" things you are complaining about.
-
I'm not actually doing anything in this forum.
I did make one negative vote when I meant just a thumbs down. But that is probably balanced by my getting a good and bad reputation vote from Frederick.
And I couldn't possibly do 'tit for tat' on the forums because I thought personal abuse was against the site rules. I may be wrong.
PS Personal pronoun 'you' takes a plural verb in English
-
So, let me get this clear: instead of answering my question, you all decide to deflect to something that has absolutely nothing to do with this topic and was only brought up because of another attempt to derail what this topic is about?
Okay, got it. I have my answer. You will not stop deflecting and derailing on here and that's all I need to know. My call for civility is over. And since deflection and derailment is perfectly fine according to you, then it shouldn't be a problem when I do it. If I get reported for derailing one of your posts, I will bring it to the attention of a higher up and action will be taken because it can't be perfectly fine for you to do it and not fine for everyone else to do it. Just remember you brought this on yourselves.
I changed my signature before FOR MONTHS to reflect that I was serious about bringing more civility to this forum and you all took it as a joke. None of you were willing to seriously consider removing the toxicity from this forum and while that's sad, it's expected. This civility thread had input of a lot of different users, which you can't say for most of your posts. Most of your posts only have replies from mhorndisk, Frederick and raphjd; which is very telling.
-
Sorry, but disagreeing with what you call "derailing" and "deflection" isn't being uncivil.
Any response you don't like is "derailing" and/or "deflection".
Here's an example of a conversation (I've used them before);
You; Jeffery Dahmer is the only serial killer to target males.
Me; Umm, John Wayne Gacy and others have to.
You; STOP DERAILING!!! We're only talking about Jeffery Dahmer.
++++++
You; Trump is a racist. You support a racist.
Me; Hillary openly admits she worships at least 3 well known racists. You support a racist.
You; STOP DERAILING!!! We're only talking about Trump.
