No, we don’t.
My position is that Churchill has deserved his bans and that Sabo should be freed. I don’t see the two as similar at all.
Scorning and mocking should be permitted. Being right (and I don’t concede that he is) isn’t a justification for trolling.
Lol I missed this until now. Earlier I was referring to you using this values line yesterday or the day before about how I didn’t leave when Sabo’s perma reversal reversal.
I’m truly curious about what this weird stance even means. You decided my values involve leaving? I think living my values is something I fail at every day and always have, but for a couple years all anyone could talk about here when describing me was “he lives his values” lol.
What are you saying, can you spell it out for me? What are the values you’re referring to?
Fair enough. I view churchill as a calculated repeated intentional troll while AQ gets riled up and says some shit sometimes. That’s a big difference to me.
One of my favorite theories is how UP drama aligns with the state of politics as a whole. And this to me is just an example of how the left is soft. We can’t even let one guy come in here and argue with us without wanting to exile him. The modern American left generally hates debate and views it as counter-productive. The vibe is often along the lines of you’ll never convince these people with logic so it’s a waste of time to engage. Which to me is basically giving up before the game even started. If you’re not making any progress winning people to your side, then you’re fucking using poor tactics. That’s the bottom line. Obviously you’re not expected to personally convince Churchill as changing any one specific person’s mind may or may not be futile, but at least use it as a training ground for future endeavors. If responding to him is too frustrating for you, then you have zero chance of making an impact on the 30-50% of the population whose beliefs are way more toxic than his. This might be fine if we had a 70/30 majority, but we are virtually underwater and bleeding voters in a bunch of different demographics. Laugh at him, argue with him, do whatever you want, but writing off the person and the argument is not going to cut it. And we do it far too often in far too many arenas. It’s like the DSA trying to expel Jamaal Bowman if you want an IRL example. We need to win, and the way to win is to bring more people to our side. The way to do that is to fight for your beliefs.
Cliffs: Don’t be like the Sixers in game 6 yesterday.
4 Likes
These aren’t arguments:
It’s not arguments I’m taking issue with.
What if some of us just want to chill and talk about politics and other world events like grown-ups?
2 Likes
“The left hates debate” is wrong. Look at here, Twitter or anywhere in the world. Some bad faith troll will start trolling and left leaning people will spend hours, days, weeks, years debating them!
I honestly don’t know which right wing place that point started but it’s really the most wrong of anything I’ve ever seen.
2 Likes
Completely disagree with everything you said. For starters, there is no point in arguing with someone whose sole intention is to stir shit up.
Yeah that looks really bad when it’s not in context
Even in this screenshot though we don’t see the context of why he’s bringing up that you didn’t get tested and how he’d been ridiculed for saying people should get tested
nope, that’s not it. You’re trying way too hard to make this something it’s not. Again, trolling someone about their children isn’t ok in friendly groups.
And yet people argue with goofyballer every day
1 Like
The first step would be to try being more chill and grown up. Be the change you want to see
No idea why you considered it a good idea to make a post like that.
Would you say your posting here today is chill, grown-up behavior?
I’m not convinced everyone here has bothered to read the COVID threat. The anti-churchill faction seems adamant that everything is obvious. So let’s do a dive into what was actually posted.
In response to someone else’s COVID experience, churchill posts his own:
churchill continues:
So far, I would consider that acceptable posting.
MrWookie posts a link to an article with the conclusion: “We found that younger children may be more likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with older children, and the highest odds of transmission were observed for children aged 0 to 3 years.”
Trolly is Trolly and says:
CaffeineNeeded asks for data.
Wookie follows up with an excerpt from one of his links.
spidercrab posts some news articles on vaccines for kids, which gets these reactions:
This is where I think the thread goes off the rails. churchill’s response is to quote them and say:
I think this is pretty obviously trolling and it gets the predictable response:
And it goes on from there.
My judgment is that churchill started it in this instance. I would not consider Trolly’s comment to be the start of it.
If people want churchill banned, or at least more severely punished than he currently is, then you should be willing to do the work to document if he has behaved similarly when he has been banned previously.
This isn’t a friendly group and we shouldn’t write our rules under the assumption that this is a friendly group.
grunching, but why do Wookie and CN feel compelled to engage with Churchill? What is wrong with ignoring or scrolling past his posts?
1 Like
what if i told you there was a way so that we could all just not have to deal with churchill’s posts?
And it doesn’t even require a ban!
“Not having to interact with him” is not the reason for a ban. That doesn’t in itself mean we shouldn’t ban, but ovbviously there’s more trying to be accomplished here than “I don’t wanna see his posts.”