Hillary lost the popular vote.

[oldjones]

In real life, there are practical controls in relation to those who baselessly declare every opposing point of view to be racist, homophobic, etc. It isn't tolerated. Such persons find themselves excluded from social political discussions, and perhaps excluded from social interactions altogether. If such people crave social interaction, they have to moderate their behaviour in order to be allowed by others to engage.

There are no such controls here on the internet. Thus, the internet has become the refuge of those who cannot or will not moderate their behaviour to be respectful to others, and do not engage in discussions to both speak and listen. On the internet, if you don't use your ignore button, you have no tools to moderate this anti-social behaviour. If you do use your ignore button, such people will just move on to other persons to offend.

Calling someone's views racist is tantamount to calling them a racist. Ironically, a real racist wouldn't care about being characterized that way. However, the vast majority of people take such slurs, meted out so casually, to be offensive personal insults. It's not too surprising that they are met with responding insults (stupid, f'd up, loser, etc.) As uncivil as it is, often the responding insult is more deserved than the one which set off the exchange.

Sports referees are always getting this wrong. They always seem to focus blame on the retaliation, rather than on the person who initiated the problem. Likewise, often parents get it wrong by punishing both children who are engaging in this kind of behaviour, even though one child clearly initiated the problem. The way to get it right is identify who started it and deal with them in a timely way.

You and I both know who this always is here at TERB.

Incivility certainly doesn't excuse more incivility, but neither does civility cure incivility.

If we are policing our own community, then we should be addressing the initiators of insulting exchanges at the point they commence. If we are not, then what you have said does not improve the standard of discourse either.

Got it, go after the oldest offenders. Current offenders musn't be noted or called out until their turn finally arrives. Sounds like a job for the Archives Police. I'm sure you have a helpful example of a smoothly running justice sytem that operates by that principle.

As for the bit I highlighted, it is no more 'always' the case than it's always the case that all white cops are bigots, real racists don't mind the label, or black people have natural rhythm. I certainly hope you don't take that sort of prejudice to work with you.

And Calgacus still wears funny clothes, but I'll stop blaming his Mom.

Although there are pages of nothing but insults in this thread, the insulting comment that I replied to ignored the on-topic content it quoted. Start a thread about insults, decorum, parliamentary language if you want to opine on that. Or deal with the topic at hand. Clearly even you, and certainly Smallcock and FAST and McNasty and … and … are having no success with the approach you've chosen. It neither removes, nor reforms the irritant you haven't yet succeeded at arguing down.

Some nostrum about repeating the same faile process thinking this time the results will be different …

 

[oldjones]

Sometimes gentleman such as I like to put on powdered wigs and spend time with other members of our elite coterie.

When this occurs I often like to make ad hominem attacks.

Do forgive me Jonesy

Saying the "stupid" vote went to Trump is a generalization. I saw a whole lot of people acting stupidly protesting the election results. Pretty sure they didn't vote for Trump.

Labeling a whole group as stupid is an ad hominem attack(of sorts) ffs. Is he attacking their position or reasons for voting the way they did? No He's just branding them as stupid because they don't share the same opinion as his

Ah the elite reveals they can be as unreasonable and dare I say 'stupid' as anyone else, when they have no actual point to counter with. And you not just elite, but a bewigged gentleman, the very sort the Fathers thought fitted for the great task of electing the President that the stupid mob wasn't worthy of.

It's not for me to tell you what another poster meant, nor for you to tell me, but I'm glad you're standing up for the 'stupid mob'. Because they were sure in the result somewhere, and we're stuck with the result they and the election gave us. A result they daily claim to be ever more rigged than the claim of the preceeding day. But which they're ever more determined shall stand.

Utterly stupid.

BTW I think those long white stockings make your calves look fat.

 

[Bud Plug]

Got it, go after the oldest offenders. Current offenders musn't be noted or called out until their turn finally arrives. Sounds like a job for the Archives Police. I'm sure you have a helpful example of a smoothly running justice sytem that operates by that principle.

As for the bit I highlighted, it is no more 'always' the case than it's always the case that all white cops are bigots or black people have natural rhythm. I certainly hope you don't take that sort of prejudice to work with you.

And Smallcock still wears funny clothes, but I'll stop blaming his Mom.

As it happens, in the legal system, a person's record does matter. More police attention is directed to towards known offenders, and repeat offenders receive greater sanctions than first offenders. You had a choice whether to call out a repeat offender who had initiated an insulting and uncalled-for exchange, or the person without the same record who retaliated. You chose the latter. I'm saying that was a poor choice, if the objective was to encourage more civility.

As to the part you highlighted, It would take me quite a while to run out of TERB witnesses prepared to testify that the person in question invariably initiates insulting exchanges, or does so often enough that the difference between 100% of the time and the actual percentage is not material. You aren't usually one to hold stubbornly to an indefensible position. Your side point about bigotry is a complete non sequitor. Ironically, raising insinuations or outright unfounded allegations of bigotry are the M.O. of the subject of our discussion. Go ahead and defend the record of that person if you wish, but I think you'll regret the collateral impact upon your own credibility.

Your "funny clothes" line is, of course, innocuous. I can't agree that flippant allegations of racism are equally immaterial, which is why I posted.

 

[Smallcock]

Are you judging how smart she is based on her command of English?

Based on her 20 minute rant that even her own friends had to call her out on as they started getting irritated by her too.

 

[Bud Plug]

Although there are pages of nothing but insults in this thread, the insulting comment that I replied to ignored the on-topic content it quoted. Start a thread about insults, decorum, parliamentary language if you want to opine on that. Or deal with the topic at hand. Clearly even you, and certainly Smallcock and FAST and McNasty and … and … are having no success with the approach you've chosen. It neither removes, nor reforms the irritant you haven't yet succeeded at arguing down.

Thanks, but no thanks to the suggestion to start a discussion about decorum elsewhere. In my view, the discussion always belongs where the issue is found.

Let me start by saying that I don't think I'm adopting the same approach to dealing with this individual as the others you mention. I have this person on ignore. As a result, I no longer engage directly with him. That's turned out to be an imperfect solution, as I still see his posts where he engages other posters, sometimes in relation to my posts (as quotes within other posts).

Some approaches to a problem require a co-operative effort. It should be clear to you that I'm seeking that co-operation. If I conclude that cooperation can't be achieved, then I will take a different course that doesn't require it. However, I should note that "arguing down" is something that can only be done to someone susceptible to the power of persuasive argument. I predict that such a tactic would never dissuade this individual. While I think that his pervasive posts and undisciplined allegations bring unnecessary antagonism to the tone of discussions on this board, I actually think the primary beneficiary of a "hiatus" would be the poster himself. It's a little surprising that the poster hasn't come to this conclusion on his own.

There is a community rule which prevents members from engaging in personal insults on this forum. For reasons beyond my comprehension, it would appear that the moderators consider a term like "stupid" to be an insult, but "racist" apparently is not. Such is their privilege to decide. As a result, addressing this issue is left to members. I am suggesting that members can make this practice unacceptable here if they wish to. If not, I can make my own choices as to how to deal with a lack of consensus on this issue.

Writing posts on an internet forum is both of no consequence while at the same time of sufficient consequence for any of us to spend our time here. A clear contradiction. These sorts of issues, and how they are dealt with, are how I resolve this kind of contradiction.

Are you and I on the same page on this issue, or not?