How's the forum doing? Check-up.

[Lucky1936]

Who are you?

I'm a lurker from the DCF.

Lack of new members is for sure a threat to the long term viability of Hashwerks...this is me trying to do my part to help out.

[Martin Hash]

Who are you?

I'm a lurker from the DCF.

Lack of new members is for sure a threat to the long term viability of Hashwerks...this is me trying to do my part to help out.

This is how it's done.

Welcome Lucky!

[StCapps]

Lurkers of the DCF and the MHF are naturally the best pool of recruits. To any lurkers reading this, be cool and follow his example, new blood is more than welcome around these parts.

[Hwen Hoshino]

Lurkers of the DCF and the MHF are naturally the best pool of recruits. To any lurkers reading this, be cool and follow his example, new blood is more than welcome around these parts.

viewtopic.php?f=65&t=1580&hilit=nigger

New blood that understands what kind of place this is. Foam never to be seen again...

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

2) As has been mentioned, the left vs right war that was happening on the DCF is over and the right won. This leaves us with mostly a bunch of righties in Hashwerks, creating an echo-chamber without any good lefties to fight with. So unless a bunch of intelligent, articulate lefties ( ) sign on to Hashwerks and start stirring things up, the righties aren't going to have anything interesting to do...

The problem is volume. For instance, Bjorn and Adwin post good left-of-center content, but neither of them post with the frequency, or the vim and vigor of some of the more prolific members.

Also, to the credit of the other left hippie degenerates, it is difficult to sound articulate in the other side's echo chamber... especially these days, when trying to show your work gets 'fake news' or 'msm talking point' thrown out, and no further discussion seems to be required. End of argument, further resistance is simply evidence of blind stupidity. Then, having abandoned the futile effort of presenting evidence against the consensus, you get told to 'prove it.' That isn't exactly fertile ground for discussion.

I would love to hear some advice from the right on what sort of arguments would be considered remotely articulate? What sort of evidence would be considered a valid critique of Trump? How does one prove that the entire DNC isn't, for instance, a pedophile ring? How does one prove that a protester isn't paid by Soros? Inside the right's echo chamber, the burden of proof is always on the miserable, lying progs... but reasoning can't work that way can it?

Anyway, end of bitching and ranting.

[clubgop]

What sort of evidence would be considered a valid critique of Trump?

That's your fault. You all have set the bar so high. If he's "literally Hitler" it shouldn't be that hard to prove. No more speculation, no more anonymous officials, bring the real shit or shut the fuck up. No conspiracies, no penumbras, show me the policy and what part of it you disagree with and we can go from there. But if you want to see Russia around every corner, or some bullshit on emollients clause well two can play at that game.

What sort of evidence would be considered a valid critique of Obama? How does one prove that the entire RNC isn't, for instance, a klan rally? How does one prove that a tea party member isn't paid by Koch's?

Payback is a bitch aint it.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

What sort of evidence would be considered a valid critique of Trump?

That's your fault. You all have set the bar so high. If he's "literally Hitler" it shouldn't be that hard to prove. No more speculation, no more anonymous officials, bring the real shit or shut the fuck up. No conspiracies, no penumbras, show me the policy and what part of it you disagree with and we can go from there. But if you want to see Russia around every corner, or some bullshit on emollients clause well two can play at that game.

"Be more specific!" Thank you. However, I will have trouble proving the Hitlerian proportions of Trump, not actually buying that nonsense myself, so if a critique is only valid if it rises to the chicken little levels of the most extreme opposition, I guess that means no critique is really valid.

What sort of evidence would be considered a valid critique of Obama? How does one prove that the entire RNC isn't, for instance, a klan rally? How does one prove that a tea party member isn't paid by Koch's?

Payback is a bitch aint it.

I think there are many, near endless, valid critiques of BHO, and I do not associate the GOP with the Klan. I also think the Tea Party were mostly genuinely concerned with protecting liberties they believed were being threatened, even if I am not thrilled with some of what the Koch's gave money to. So I am not sure who is being paid back exactly.

Since we are communicating so effectively, I would appreciate it if the right would stop changing the subject every time the left tries to be critical of them. It is almost as irritating as the left bringing up bad shit Christians do (or did many hundreds of years ago) every time anyone tries to have a discussion about Islamist terrorism. Almost as irritating.

Also, I believe it is called a red herring, and disrupts good debate.

[TheReal_ND]

Shit up fag.

[Ex-California]

Sometimes I just don't have it in me anymore

[BjornP]

I've been pretty busy for the last two weeks...

When I have had a chance to check in... the place seems kind of dead...

Are we in decline?

I guess Martin's Forum was kinda of a leaky lifeboat to begin with.... but exceeded expectations for a little while IMO.

Maybe it's just that the dawn of the Era of Trump was invigorating and but it seems to be bogging down.

The tendency toward anger, hyperbole, strawmanning and hysteria that occurs here, only occurs because that's what the members who engage in that behavior have been and are taught by the society they're part of. Playing (and over-acting) the victim, strawmanning positions to be more extreme than they are, painting your opponent as evil incarnate or in league with evil incarnate, and last but not least: The assumption that there is a "The" right and a "The" left, reminscent of the two-party system. A Conservative gets painted with the same brush as a Hitlerian Neo-Nazi, a Social Liberal gets painted with the same brush as a Stalinist. Both sides know that that sort of thinking is wrong, but they only object to it when it's done to their own.