Congrats on 500!!! :cheers: :love: :love: :love:
A reputation of 500 means absolutely nothing when you preside over a toxic forum where only those who approve of your views have a positive reputation, and where no one wants to participate because of a user like you who mass-posts and spams all day long. :cheers:
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.
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.
This is a very strange occurrence and the fact that it's happened multiple times within a few months span is troubling. It could very well be a coincidence but it just feels strange. I doubt if it's anything done wrong on the Navy's part. We have a competent military that rarely screws things up. If it is something that's being done intentionally, I believe it's coming from higher up within our government. I have suspicions but as of yet, they're 100% unfounded so I'd rather not state them until more is known. Like I said, it could very well be a strange coincidence.
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.
Raphjd, there are about 3 other threads ranting about this topic and it has nothing to do with politics. Why is this spamming still allowed on here? This is a part of the problem with this forum. I'm going to report all three threads but is there a guarantee that anything will be done? Why is he allowed to make 3 separate threads about the same exact topic and then mass post in a row about the topic? This is ridiculous.
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.
Lol, way to splice things. You have nothing other than propaganda in your life to support. Go to the beach or something. The idea that you are pornoting this is disgusting. He never called for violence, just because violence may have happened. He said, "Like to punch him in the face, I'll tell ya." Oh so raping a kid doesn't invoke you wanting to punch the guy in the face? You're absurd. Yea you guys love to leave that part out.
More irrational conspiracy ranting like I expected. :crap:
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.
There are many, many other videos on Youtube and elsewhere that show him telling his audiences to "knock people out" and that protesters used to get "put on stretchers" back in the 1950s and 1960s. I will never forget the North Carolina incident where to young black men were leaving one of his rallies and an old white man elbowed one of them in the face and was charged and convicted of felony assault. The president on many occasions called for violence.
Let me ask you a question. Why were all his Twitter and Facebook posts deleted immediately after this? That's called a red flag. It's always non-stop red flags with you guys. He is pictured with Antifa, and you call it Photoshop. Ok, so if you are a photoshop expert, then why is no one who works for Adobe calling it out? Why don't you email or call Adobe and ask them?
He's being charged with a serious crime. The prosecutor has probably seized his social media accounts to provide evidence for the trial before his friends or family members could remove it. That or maybe his family was allowed to delete his accounts after the prosecutor got what was needed. I'm not Photoshop expert but I use it all the time (I use it to make my signature pics and GIFs). It's very easy to point out a Photoshopped image. There's also a bunch of Snopes articles calling out the right-wing conspiracy theories surrounding the case, here's one: http://www.snopes.com/charlottesville-killer-radical-leftist/
Now, can we get back to the point of this thread or are you going to keep derailing to this pointless conspiracy theory that has been debunked already?
That's why we support Trump. His people don't do violence. There are some who support him who might do that, but it's 99% on the left, and some of them pretend to be Trump supporters, like the Charlottesville guy who killed that woman, was actually photographed in Antifa gear, a fake Trump supporter.
This is where we're gonna have to disagree. The president actually called for violence at his rallies and there were a lot of incidents where people were attacked at his rallies. And no, the murderer in Charlottesville was photographed by many different news cameras, including Fox News, marching with the white supremacists only. The photo you are referring to was a photoshopped image that has been spreading around conspiracy sites.
Still, I will agree that the violence on the left needs to be called out more and the media is failing its job covering that.
What??? Nobody is deflecting accept for you. We address the issues you state about Trump and quote him.
You say we're racist because he wants a wall - we ask why they can't just show their ID.
You say we're racist because he didn't attack Nazis fast enough - we show pictures of the Charlottesville killer in Antifa gear.
You say we're racist because he didn't "know David Duke," - we say he doesn't know him personally- he condemned him already over and over.
It's ridiculous that you attack us for deflecting against your fraudulent conspiracies.
Just stop promoting the idea that Trump is the racist - It's YOU - hello!
Half of this I have no idea what you're talking about because I never called YOU a racist for your stance on ANY of it. The other half is just stuff you either made up or found on some right-wing conspiracy site or Infowars. According to Fox News and various other right-leaning sites, the killer was clearly marching with the white supremacists as depicted in this non-photoshopped pic of him I just found on the Fox News website:
The pic you're referring to was most likely that photoshopped pic of him that's been floating around various conspiracy sites.
Still, this is way off topic. We're discussing derailment and deflection and I'm not letting that point go until we come to some kind of agreement on how to move forward.
Wow, that actually sounds like common sense! I might give you a thumbs up! Thank you! (I did give you a thumbs up).
It is my honest opinion and always has been. While I can't stand false equivalency, I also can't stand blatant bias. And this anti-free speech movement on campuses is unfair to so many students. I'd be really pissed if I paid all of that money for tuition and someone I really wanted to hear give a speech was stopped by some whiny idiots who could've just ignored what was being said. I will keep citing this example because it really puts this into perspective. Dr. Cornell West came to my school, the University of South Carolina, in 2011 and NO ONE EVEN PROTESTED. West is a left-wing conspiracy theorist and nutjob, yet the College Republicans didn't even object to him coming. He was allowed to talk for over two hours about some guy who served as a senator during the Reconstruction era or something. These protests to speakers coming to campuses are just dumb. Unless the speaker is promoting direct violence or making threats to your life, just let them say what they want and move on. If it starts some kind of bigoted right-wing uprising on your campus, counter it with more free speech. Free speech should be the only weapon against free speech.
Clearly, obesity rates vs Obama is derailing.
Obama is a race baiter. That is fact. He yammers on about hate crimes, even when the incident wasn't one, while ignoring ones that blatantly were hate crimes. Like most blacks on the left and at least half the whites on the left, Obama believes that only whites can commit hate crimes. He kept up the proven lie "hands up, don't shoot". He sent 100 FBI agents to Ferguson and they proved that it was a lie and the usual race baiters refused to admit it was a lie. Even Sheila Jackson Lee, my congresswoman that I have voted for the last 24 years still maintains that lie, as do most of the other notorious race baiters in congress.
Not surprisingly, these are the very same people who maintain the feminist lies. 77c on the dollar crap is clearly debunked by the Dept of Labor's own stats. FBI stats debunk college rape claims.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this because we'll never come to some middle ground on something this deep. This country has had a race problem going back centuries and a lot has to happen for things to change in a better direction. Calling President Obama a race baiter is an opinion just like calling #45 a bigot is an opinion. Until you can read the minds of people, it's an opinion. That's why I pointed to #45 calling for a renewed ban on transgender people not serving in the military. That's not an opinion, it's something he actually tweeted and has supported on video. Unless you can point me to a video or statement by Barack Obama saying, "White people are my enemy," or "I'm going to use a specific incident to invoke racism," calling him a race baiter is an opinion. I called #45 a bigot after he called KKK members and neo-nazis "good people" but that's only MY OPINION. I cannot read the president's mind and if you want to call my opinion irrational based off of what you know, fine. That's why they are called opinions.
But back to my point, the derailment tactics are childish and my examples are not very far off of what has been going on here. If I make the argument that our president is a bigot, then why not make a counter-argument of why you believe he is not a bigot. "Hillary Clinton idolizes Margaret Sanger," is not a counter-argument to the OPINION that our president is a bigot. Do you know what would be? I'll give you an example. "The president is not a bigot because he has given money and has provided council for both Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in the past. He has also been awarded by various NAACP chapters." Then we could have a debate on those factual claims about #45 because he did indeed give money to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and has been awarded by the NAACP many times. For some odd reason, no one on here likes to do that type of research to defend their claims. Instead, you go right for the Hillary and Obama cards. Do you not understand how that weakens your argument?
I'm not talking about bees from Africa? I'm pointing out that your poll is totally ridiculous. You are derailing the argument by saying we can't say the name Hillary under ANY circumstances or we're racist. We can't talk about the DNC under ANY circumstances because it's a derailment. You act like it's us saying, "Oh well this president did THIS, totally unrelated." It's not. This is why you REFUSE to answer any posts specifically about "The DNC cheating Bernie." That subject is OFF-LIMITS for you, because you know they are actually doing it and have NO excuse. It's obvious. You just point the finger and use ridiculous CNN reports. You aren't biased. Anything that is against the DNC or Pro-Trump is something you are just too afraid to discuss. You have NO ability to debate those things. All you have is your statements that Trump is a Nazi, and anything else is NOT to be touched. You can't do it.
It was an example of how ridiculous your derailment can be at times. And I'm not saying you can't talk about Hillary or President Obama or whatever; I'm saying there is a time and place to discuss them and while discussing topics that have absolutely nothing to do with them you are making an effort to derail arguments when you bring them into those topics. Lastly, I don't participate in your conspiracy posts because that would be a total waste of my time. I'm not going to debate irrational rants and then have to invoke the immortal words of Maxine Waters, "I'm reclaiming my time," over and over again. It's simply not worth it. Your rants and conspiracy posts aren't worth it, and that's okay. Rant away because this is an open forum where you can talk about anything you want to. Just don't bring that childishness into rational discussions that are actually worthy of debate. When you do that, you're trying to derail and we all know it. Thank you for finally stating an argument and defending it, though. Seems like someone is taking a page out of Frederick's book.
There is a serious media bias when it comes to reporting on violence on the left and cowards in the Democratic Party will not talk about it. Bill Maher mentions it a lot on his show how liberals are unwilling to talk about the attack on free speech and how violent the left has gotten in recent years when trying to stop free speech. There needs to be more reporting on it. That law that was being considered in the Wisconsin Assembly should have been talked about more because it specifically dealt with these outrageous college campuses. It needs to be someone or a group of people on the left who brings more awareness to this because if it continues this way, someone is going to die and that doesn't have to happen. These idiots, and there are a lot of them, get up in arms when ANYONE they disagree with comes to their campus. I've seen it and I agree 100% with those on here who are calling it out. Destruction of property is a serious matter and so is spitting on people and throwing chemicals–-including from the body---on people they disagree with. I couldn't be a professor in these times because I'd piss off so many students and get booted by the administration. Free speech is free speech and no one can take that away, and eventually they'll understand that and cut their ridiculous tactics out. Until then, someone with a big platform on the left needs to stand up and say enough is enough. I honestly believe it will take Democrats losing 2020 to wake them up to this. By losing that election they will either stand up for free speech or build a new coalition of voters WITHOUT these anti-free speech idiots.
I feel like this thread was a breakthrough, and even with the attempts at derailment, we made some progress on stating our arguments and defending them instead of using childish tactics to shut the discussion down. Once again, we don't have to agree on everything. It's not about that. It's also not about keeping people from talking about certain things. We are not children. We are all adults and adults know how to state what they believe without basing their arguments on falsehoods and alternative realities. Hopefully, this is a sign that we are going to improve the Politics & Debate section by actually debating with our arguments, not by constant downvoting or multiple negative reputation hits in one day. Thanks to everyone who participated and a special thank you to Frederick. I hope to see more of that in your posts, man :thankyou:
I don't care about valid downvoting, have at it.
What I was talking about is leftists blindly and rabidly following their enemies around the forums so they could downvote everything they posted. The leftists didn't care what was posted, just who posted it.
In another section, a leftist mentioned something that I hadn't seen. The leftist gave me a link and I thanked him. Both of us got flooded with downvotes. Similar thing happened to you when you left the leftist mindhive and condemned the violence on both sides.
++++
Deflection/Derailment
As I said somewhere else, screaming "deflection/derailment" at everything is just a way to stop a discussion you don't want to have.
During Obama, righties said some stupid shit about Obama and leftists didn't like it.
Now leftists are saying stupid shit about Trump and righties don't like it.
According to you, I can't mention the hypocrisy of the situation. We're only allowed to talk about how evil and whatever about Trump.
Nope, nope, nope. That is simply not an example of what you and some of the others have been doing. If we were having a discussion about the Afghanistan War and I mentioned the fact that #45 lied about ending it while he was running for president AND you brought up the fact that President Obama lied about ending it, I would not call that deflection. Comparing FACTUAL actions that BOTH or MOST presidents have done is NOT deflection.
What I am calling out is this constant, "well Hillary poured bleach on Bill; therefore, she's the president and is ruining the country" deflection when we're discussing our very real president. That is a direct deflection and derailment tactic. Hillary Clinton is not a former or current president and never has been. She was a presidential nominee ONCE and she lost. Invoking her name in every single argument ruins your own argument because framing your argument on a losing candidate having without a single iota of power is a LOSING ARGUMENT. She has no power, she's not the president and we do not live in a "what if" reality.
You also cannot defend a president's actions by saying, "well, X other president did this totally unrelated thing." If we are having a discussion on the president proposing to ban transgender people from serving in the military and you defend it by stating, "President Obama supported BLM 100% and is a race baiter," that is clear deflection and derailment. Those two issues have absolutely nothing in common and one–-Obama being a race baiter---is an opinion; meanwhile, #45 in clear terms on Twitter stated he wants to ban transgender people from the military which makes it a FACT. If you're thinking about obesity rates in Mississippi and out of the blue you think the solution to it is President Obama is a race baiter, then you lack the ability to think rationally and your main intention is to deflect and derail arguments by constantly using President Obama.
I find it fascinating that RoyalCrown has to go back 28 years to find something to comment about.
It's pretty obvious that the 5 punks committed a crime.. HOWEVER.. I am taking a look at this case and have some comments that should make RoyalCrown happy.
If you want, give me the names and ages (and exact birthdates if you can) and I will look up those "fellows" charged in the attacks. I have found some, but not all of their names and ages. I have not yet done background checks on them.REGARDLESS of that…
The death penalty is stupid. It costs far more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for a lifetime. Far too often, people sentenced to death have been later found to be not guilty. (the man I sometimes refer to would have been executed if the country he is in had the death penalty.. a lot of people are going to pay dearly when it is revealed that not only is he not guilty, but the proof that he is not guilty was always there - but ignored. The actual killer was a drag queen that lived directly above the accused man. The drag queen committed suicide a few months after the murder). Given the choice between a lifetime in prison and a quick painless execution.. it would be far more punishing to keep them in prison. Dead people feel no pain or remorse.Some, if not all of the accused Central Park 5 were minors at the time. suggesting that they should be executed is absurd. You don't execute minors. The reasoning part of the human brain is not even fully developed until about 25 years of age.
The victim was not killed.. and executing someone for rape is absurd. At the MOST, they should castrate a rapist - not execute.
It seems that the accused 5 were OVERCHARGED. The woman was raped, but since there were several people involved, it is difficult, if not impossible to PROVE guilt unless you find their DNA up in her vag. They did find DNA of one person whom was not one of the 5 charged. The only way you could prove rape is if they confessed to doing it themselves. Even then, I don't think they were sufficiently represented, nor old enough to be making a confession. Furthermore, even if they did make a legitimate confession, the fact that they made the confession should have resulted in a plea bargain where they would NOT be convicted of rape - otherwise why would anybody confess to anything? Keep in mind that at least 10% of people who confess to rape only do so as a plea bargain to avoid more severe punishment.
There is a big question of what those five were doing at Central Park at 9:30PM. I doubt very much they were there to have a picnic or feed the pigeons.
I think the biggest issue with that case is how the punishment for rape is so severe, and the burden of proof is so low. One simple example of that... a man and woman have sex. The man dumps the woman after sex, or doesn't call her back, or gave her a fake phone number, or didn't pay her, or gets an STD, or finds out the man has a girlfriend / wife, or gets pregnant, etc. The woman who was completely consensual at the time, and perhaps even seduced the man, is then pissed off, and decides to file rape charges. Pretty much no male is safe from that scenario. There have been countless cases in the news of celebrities charged with rape.. and this happens all the time with non-celebrities as well.
I am not shedding any tears for those 5 thugs.. but they were not treated properly by the judicial system. Trump's biggest fault has been how much faith he puts in the police and the judicial system. They should have been charged with lesser crimes, and spent a couple of years in jail. The compensation they eventually got was grossly excessive. Four of them got $7.1 million.. the 5th got $12.2 million.
Here are the names and ages of the 5 thugs.. or I should really say three...
Korey Wise 18 1 traffic citation
Raymond Santana 15 41 theft, 90 prostitution
Yusef Salaam 16 4 robbery, 4 rape
Antron McCray 16 6 traffic citations
Kevin Richardson 16 4 Sodomy, 4 robbery, 5 rape, 4 2nd degree murderKeep in mind that almost all of these charges are BEFORE the Central Park event. (the traffic citations are after)
The jury were probably not OFFICIALLY made aware of the crimes of Santana, Salaam, McCray, and Richardson because they were juveniles at the time.
Of the 5.. two seem to be "clean"
Santana is obviously a thief and prostitute - but otherwise cleanYusef Salaam is a robber who can't keep his dick in his pants..
Kevin Richardson.. that guy truly belongs in prison - it seems he had participated in crimes with Yusef Salaam.The guy with the lavendar scarf is the prostitute.. :bsex:
I hope RoyalCrown is happy now..
Frederick, I actually am proud of you for once being able to define your opinion, follow through without any deflection, defend that opinion and thoughtfully critique every single instance of the topic of this thread. Thank you. Why was it so hard to do that in the first place? You even pointed out the president's faults. And while I disagree with most of what you said, I do agree they were not treated properly by the justice system which is the case for millions of poor people (regardless of race) in this country.
You're right that this case goes back some 28 years; however, the president was asked while campaigning for president in 2016 does he still feel the same way and he replied that he does. That makes it fair game until he either addresses it again or walks back his claims. I actually am for the death penalty but only when there's undeniable evidence that the person up for execution actually did the horrific crime. I believe the death penalty is a deterrent and I don't think I'll ever change that position. I agree that rape should not be crime punished by death penalty, only capital murder. So there's some disagreement between us there but that's why this is called the Politics & Debate section, so we can debate and not reduce ourselves to childishness.
I just can't thank you enough, sincerely, for finally showing that you can stay on point and make your argument. I respect you for this and I hope to see more of it. We don't have to agree or want the same things, it's always been about defining your argument and debating on the merits of your argument instead of deflecting and derailing without debating. I'm not being sarcastic or anything like that when I say you can help make this forum live up to its name again. So, what do you say? Are you going to help make this forum great again? :hug: