[Technology] Are some leftwingers unthinking automatons?

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Ah, the racist moron has served his ban and is back starting moronic threads.

**** off, loony.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This bloke has been away hasn’t he ? I like loonies. Delusional people fascinate me.

Banned for racism. What a total wast of oxygen.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I most definitely am not...am not....definitely am not...definitely am not...definitely am not...definitely am not.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'm not big on the OP or these memes either, but why do so many of your posts amount to a declaration of reasons why you didn't need to read a post rather than a well formed argument in opposition to it?

Those who have people on 'ignore' still have the right (perhaps a requirement) to comment on their threads. 'I have this ejit on ignore' is a valid response. Some people think that the dick heads need to be rebutted. Some of us have tried to rebut, but with some posters, it is pointless. This particular poster is one of the worst, with obvious mental health issues, as well as bing a word-blind racist oaf. There is no point reading or replying to his posts. But it is right to lodge a comment. My comment is **** off looney.

 

[Bakero]

I most definitely am not...am not....definitely am not...definitely am not...definitely am not...definitely am not.

I don't know what to think about that.

 

[dingodan]

Your criticisms of 'the left' may be valid but they can be equally levelled at 'the right'.

In group/out group right mentalities are where these memes have originated in the first instance. Like minded individuals will congregate. This isn't a left/right thing whatsoever.

Moral superiority, well unless 'the right' think they are morally inferior then it's obvious they will have a sense of superiority over the left. People of the right have just as much a sense of moral superiority as any other group of people who share a similar mindset.

In considering two binary groups as you are you, from a seemingly critical of 'the left' perspective smacks of hypocrisy.

I pointed out where the difference lies.

I agree that both sides are capable of in/out group mentalities, and of course both are members of "groups" by definition. But the left have adopted a collectivist mentality, where group identity trumps the individual. The tendencies of the left tend to be more collectivist and the right more individualist. I would expect that if you tend towards individualism you are more likely to take a person (and their views) as you find them, whereas if you tend towards collectivism you are more likely to identify a persons group and judge them on that basis. It's not clear cut, and these are not absolutes, but they are tendencies and they result in the two sides behaving somewhat differently.

The right don't tend to take a position of moral superiority like the left do. Don't mistake believing that your ethics are correct for believing that your opponents are unethical. For example the right tend to generally accept that the left can be considered "pro choice" and that they are "pro life". But the left will tend to argue that they are "pro choice" but that the right are "anti-women". To give another example, in this country if you are of the right you might say that the lefts economic views are well meaning but problematic and unsustainable, but if you are of the left you are likely to say that the rights economic views are selfish and mean spirited (and that the right hate the poor, or something like that). Immigration - similar thing, the right might call the left compassionate but irresponsible when it comes to immigration, but the left will just call the right racist bigots.

The left have come to argue that the right are dangerous purveyors of hate and often attempt to silence them (or argue that they should be silenced), it's now the right who defend free speech, even for those they disagree with, which has actually always traditionally been a liberal position.

 

[Chicken Run]

Looney posts some shit [emoji23]


Other Looneys on this board react[emoji23]

Looney sits back and [emoji23]

Looney has been doing this for along time [emoji23]

Who are the real Looneys [emoji23][emoji23]

 

[dingodan]

Those who have people on 'ignore' still have the right (perhaps a requirement) to comment on their threads. 'I have this ejit on ignore' is a valid response. Some people think that teh dick heads need to be rebutted. Some of us have tried to rebut, but with some posters, it is pointless. This particular poster is one of the worst, with obvious mental health issues, as well as bing a word-blind racist oaf. There is no point reading or replying to his posts. But it is right to lodge a comment. My comment is **** off looney.

I never said he didn't have the right to comment. He doesn't have him on ignore either. I just think "play the ball, not the man", as they say.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I never said he didn't have the right to comment. He doesn't have him on ignore either. I just think "play the ball, not the man", as they say.

Eventually it may become obvious you sometimes have to play the man. But, each to his own

 

[dingodan]

Eventually it may become obvious you have to play the man. But, each to his own

You only play the man when you can't play the ball. If you can play the ball, you never have to play the man.

 

[The Clamp]

I pointed out where the difference lies.

I agree that both sides are capable of in/out group mentalities, and of course both are members of "groups" by definition. But the left have adopted a collectivist mentality, where group identity trumps the individual. The tendencies of the left tend to be more collectivist and the right more individualist. I would expect that if you tend towards individualism you are more likely to take a person (and their views) as you find them, whereas if you tend towards collectivism you are more likely to identify a persons group and judge them on that basis. It's not clear cut, and these are not absolutes, but they are tendencies and they result in the two sides behaving somewhat differently.

The right don't tend to take a position of moral superiority like the left do. Don't mistake believing that your ethics are correct for believing that your opponents are unethical. For example the right tend to generally accept that the left can be considered "pro choice" and that they are "pro life". But the left will tend to argue that they are "pro choice" but that the right are "anti-women". To give another example, in this country if you are of the right you might say that the lefts economic views are well meaning but problematic and unsustainable, but if you are of the left you are likely to say that the rights economic views are selfish and mean spirited (and that the right hate the poor, or something like that). Immigration - similar thing, the right might call the left compassionate but irresponsible when it comes to immigration, but the left will just call the right racist bigots.

The left have come to argue that the right are dangerous purveyors of hate and often attempt to silence them (or argue that they should be silenced), it's now the right who defend free speech, even for those they disagree with, which has actually always traditionally been a liberal position.

I'm not sure that's true but more of a common misconception. Loony extremists aside, most I know on the left don't attempt to silence the right but do fervently exercise their own right to show up and oppose them.

The stance of say, the EDL or that football mob is:

"We have a right to march on the streets of the UK"

and a perfectly legitimate response of the left is

"And we have a right to show up and tell you to **** off",

Both absolutely acceptable, both a total waste of time.

 

[Insel affe]

Thank feck I live in the real world.

 

[The Clamp]

Looney posts some shit [emoji23]


Other Looneys on this board react[emoji23]

Looney sits back and [emoji23]

Looney has been doing this for along time [emoji23]

Who are the real Looneys [emoji23][emoji23]

You assume the people reacting aren't laughing just as hard.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You only play the man when you can't play the ball. If you can play the ball, you never have to play the man.

Yes but when you get so much balls from one man....and they are not actually even balls. Just bollocks....

I spend most of my professional life in discourse. But I have to draw the line at ****wits. I had a personal tutee (I tach at uni) one year who took up 50% of my contact time. It had to be pointed out to me that after a certain amount of time you have to tell them to eff off. Luckily I was able to call in student services, councelling etc. We can't do that on NSC. I think the forever ban needs to be used more often. But you carry on plaing the ball, by all means, while your stamina and resolution are intact.

 

[dingodan]

I'm not sure that's true but more of a common misconception. Loony extremists aside, most I know on the left don't attempt to silence the right but do fervently exercise their own right to show up and oppose them.

The stance of say, the EDL or that football mob is:

"We have a right to march on the streets of the UK"

and a perfectly legitimate response of the left is

"And we have a right to show up and tell you to **** off",

Both absolutely acceptable, both a total waste of time.

I don't think the EDL and Antifa are great examples of the left or the right, they don't really tend to be much involved in the political discourse and I'm not sure that those on the outside of those groups really have much of an idea about what they believe or how they view things, myself included. My post is more referring to the more mainstream "moderate" contigent of both sides.

 

[pb21]

I pointed out where the difference lies.

I agree that both sides are capable of in/out group mentalities, and of course both are members of "groups" by definition. But the left have adopted a collectivist mentality, where group identity trumps the individual. The tendencies of the left tend to be more collectivist and the right more individualist. I would expect that if you tend towards individualism you are more likely to take a person (and their views) as you find them, whereas if you tend towards collectivism you are more likely to identify a persons group and judge them on that basis. It's not clear cut, and these are not absolutes, but they are tendencies and they result in the two sides behaving somewhat differently.

The right don't tend to take a position of moral superiority like the left do. Don't mistake believing that your ethics are correct for believing that your opponents are unethical. For example the right tend to generally accept that the left can be considered "pro choice" and that they are "pro life". But the left will tend to argue that they are "pro choice" but that the right are "anti-women". To give another example, in this country if you are of the right you might say that the lefts economic views are well meaning but problematic and unsustainable, but if you are of the left you are likely to say that the rights economic views are selfish and mean spirited (and that the right hate the poor, or something like that). Immigration - similar thing, the right might call the left compassionate but irresponsible when it comes to immigration, but the left will just call the right racist bigots.

The left have come to argue that the right are dangerous purveyors of hate and often attempt to silence them (or argue that they should be silenced), it's now the right who defend free speech, even for those they disagree with, which has actually always traditionally been a liberal position.

I think you are confusing, and comparing, the right generally against a very specific section of the left. In other words you are biased. Both sides of the coin are equally flawed.

Either way generalities are fine, as are general comparisons, but you are comparing apples with pears from a seemingly lofty perch.

 

[dingodan]

Yes but when you get so much balls from one man....and they are not actually even balls. Just bollocks....

I spend most of my professional life in discourse. But I have to draw the line at ****wits. I had a personal tutee (I tach at uni) one year who took up 50% of my contact time. It had to be pointed out to me that after a certain amount of time you have to tell them to eff off. Luckily I was able to call in student services, councelling etc. We can't do that on NSC. I think the forever ban needs to be used more often. But you carry on plaing the ball, by all means, while your stamina and resolution are intact.

I'm not opposed to telling someone to do one, but it's cheap to use a criticism of the person as an invalidation of their argument. It's a fallacy, probably the most well known of all fallacies - ad hominem. The reason it's bad is because it doesn't invalidate their argument in the least. Maybe it somehow feels like it does, but it doesn't. That's really my point.

 

[The Clamp]

I don't think the EDL and Antifa are great examples of the left or the right, they don't really tend to be much involved in the political discourse and I'm not sure that those on the outside of those groups really have much of an idea about what they believe or how they view things, myself included. My post is more referring to the more mainstream "moderate" contigent of both sides.

All blurs into one for me. I am personally slightly to the right of centre with a sprinkling of liberal views. I am known by my other half as the Victorian Father for my old fashioned views and insistence on wearing long sleeves at the beach.The able bodied of working age should be in employment, education or voluntary work and people should be encouraged to keep a tidy front garden.

But I am all for equality for the straights, the homosexuals and the "don't knows". I believe women should always be treated as if they were equal, safe accommodation should be provided for the permanently bewildered and the Welsh, we all deserve free at the point of treatment healthcare. Addicts, the homeless and the uneducated should be treated with respect and Trump supporters with sympathy and a multi-cultural UK stimulates me.
I consider myself a well-rounded individual, albeit a bit of a nob.

 

[dingodan]

I think you are confusing, and comparing, the right generally against a very specific section of the left. In other words you are biased. Both sides of the coin are equally flawed.

Either way generalities are fine, as are general comparisons, but you are comparing apples with pears from a seemingly lofty perch.

We disagree, I think what I described does reflect the mainstream of both the left and right today. That's the problem.

 

[pastafarian]

'I have this ejit on ignore' is a valid response.

In your case wouldnt it be far simpler to list all the people you dont have on ignore in your "signature" area. That way you wouldnt need to bore everyone with your constant updates of who is on your growing ignore list.