How's the forum doing? Check-up.

[StCapps]

Another problem with this board is the lefties are too sensitive. They think any criticism of Trump is immediately shot down, when that just simply is not true. If you criticize validly we'll give you dap, if you come at us fake news bullshit, you'll get called on it. If you act like Penner and become some fake news media spambot, then you'll get ridiculed, you act Dr. Youth and call out people for crying civil war, and we'll treat you with respect, while still poking fun from time to time, that's how it works.

Get a thicker skin y'all, the righties on this board are not that mean and unfair, not even close.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Having a monopoly on what is considered fake, and what is considered valid must make easy work of the arbitration of reality.

[Montegriffo]

You don't get it.

A huge number of people on the left gave up debating. They can't debate their side because they lose all the time. The least worst of them act like GCF or Monty and just behave like dicks. But quite a lot of them have resorted to violence. What you are labling the "left" has lost their minds and they will not reason. Those who do reason are sitting out on the sidelines wondering what the fuck happened.

Even here in this forum, when they get defeated in an argument, their impulse is to call for the people who defeat them to get banned or their ideas censored.

This isn't some cycle of things. It's not all the left either. And, personally, I think using this left-right paradigm is part of the problem. People simply have different ideologies. There is no continuous spectrum to it. Some of those ideologies are indefensible and dangerous. But when you frame it like some kind of political ecosystem, you only attempt to preserve an ideology or ideologies that should not be preserved but, rather, replaced.

Have you considered the possibility that the reason some people have given up trying to debate with you is because they feel you have lost the ability to do so honestly and in fact always resort to dogma and tactics such as virtue shaming and labelling others as Marxist , feminists or other such strawmen.
You trot out the phrase FAKE NEWS at any report which contradicts your narrative yet quote Breitbart almost every time you want to make a point.
You label others as insulting despite regularly calling members some quite offensive names then claim victimisation when they respond in kind.
You are the finest example of SJW tactics yet you decry those tactics more volubly than any other.

[StCapps]

Having a monopoly on what is considered fake, and what is considered valid must make easy work of the arbitration of reality.

The right doesn't have a monopoly on what is fake or valid around here. If you present a good argument, then they'll listen to it, if you post a stupid argument, they'll ridicule it. They don't always find the right balance, but they are trying to, some are more successful than others, but they aren't like SJW's and shouting down arguments just because they disagree with them. They entertain plenty of arguments that the left disagrees with, all the damn time, and they usually save fake news claims for actual fake news.

The righties on this forum simply aren't as mean as the lefties are portraying them in this thread. Suck it up buttercups, y'all are way too sensitive to any criticism or your worst critiques. Your worst critiques are nowhere near as well thought out as your best, and we aren't going to start treating your worst critiques like they are your best anytime soon, anymore than any rational person is going to start treating StA's imminent civil war as one his best anti-left critiques all of a sudden. That just isn't how it works, bad critiques get ridiculed, good critiques get dap, it's that simple.

[clubgop]

Having a monopoly on what is considered fake, and what is considered valid must make easy work of the arbitration of reality.

You would have to ask Penner and the rest of the left that wholeheartedly swallow whatever they put out. If they see it in NYT, or WaPo or snopes or politifact it must be absolutely true. There you go just being dishonest again.

[StCapps]

Problem is both the left and right on this forum are susceptible to thinking some their worst critiques are actually some of their best material somehow, and when they get called out on that, they go into cognitive dissonance because they don't want believe they could think any terrible critique was that valid, they are smarter than that and could never be so mistaken. But the thing is we are all wrong, all the fucking time, so assuming you are too smart to hold a stupid opinion that you somehow thought was smart at some point is hardly beyond the pale.

It would be better if all sides would consider that to be a possibility more often than they currently do, instead of just assuming they are too smart to fall for that. No one on this forum is so smart that they never make this mistake, so if you think you are too smart to ever make that mistake, it's time your ego got seriously deflated.

[Dand]

Having a monopoly on what is considered fake, and what is considered valid must make easy work of the arbitration of reality.

The meme "Fake News" was created by leftists on November 9, 2016. The right hardly has a monopoly on the term.

[Martin Hash]

This is a debate forum. Everyone here does it for entertainment or they wouldn't be here. The quality of the debate often is quite good such that it is also informative, better than most forums. It's as much for the lurkers as the participants. A valid tactic of online debate is to rattle your opponent with Insult and foul language. The line between entertaining and being mean is a fine one that's hard to get right so that both your opponent AND the lurkers get it.

1. If a thread is no longer entertaining, stop posting in it.
2. Let someone else take over for a while.
3. If you're getting angry, you lost.
4. Every-so-often, Read the people you never read.
5. Let people know when they did good.
6. Occasionally take the other side.
7. Never take anything personally.
8. Mimic the best.
9. Mix up your arguments.
10. Change your mind.

p.s. I have another forum that only gets New Blood once in a Blue Moon but its still going. Don't worry about it, it's about you.
p.p.s. There is no Left & Right, those are only debating constructs, but there is ideology.

[DrYouth]

But the thing is we are all wrong, all the fucking time, so assuming you are too smart to hold a stupid opinion that you somehow thought was smart at some point is hardly beyond the pale....
No one on this forum is so smart that they never make this mistake, so if you think you are too smart to ever make that mistake, it's time your ego got seriously deflated.

^^^^
This is not fake news.

[BjornP]

You don't get it.

A huge number of people on the left gave up debating. They can't debate their side because they lose all the time. But quite a lot of them have resorted to violence. What you are labling the "left" has lost their minds and they will not reason. Those who do reason are sitting out on the sidelines wondering what the fuck happened.

Even here in this forum, when they get defeated in an argument, their impulse is to call for the people who defeat them to get banned or their ideas censored.

This isn't some cycle of things. It's not all the left either. And, personally, I think using this left-right paradigm is part of the problem. People simply have different ideologies. There is no continuous spectrum to it. Some of those ideologies are indefensible and dangerous. But when you frame it like some kind of political ecosystem, you only attempt to preserve an ideology or ideologies that should not be preserved but, rather, replaced.

To your point about preserving vs replacing the "political ecosystem": Simply calling a political movement something else, isn't going to change what it is. Aside from their stance of immigrants and "Danishness", our nationalist party (now the 2nd largest political party, btw) would very much warrant a leftist label by all US media, but since anti-immigration does factor into it, US media will label them "far-right nationalists". So, from that perspective... yeah, I get why you don't see a real need for that divide. At the end of the day, we call it those things so we have a minimum level of shared understanding of who we're talking about.

There will always be Americans who want to preserve US traditional values/rights/culture, there will always be those who want to challenge them, and there will be those who want to preserve some and change others. It may not be Marxist inspired, but consider that Bismarck advocated a welfare state, and that you, boe and Atanamis...all of which most people who label - to varying degrees - conservatives, advocated or still advocate UBI. Something most people even here, and even amongst Social Democrats, scoff at as "anti-social" and a reward for laziness. The Communists dig it, though.. . Once again... good proof about that whole left v. right thing not being a good guideline - at least in absolute terms. After all, that's the whole problem with calling each other "Leftists" and "Right-wing" and a leftist assuming you're his classic stereotypical, neo-con Republican. That, really, you actually believe in some parts of what some furtherst of the field-leftists believe about redistribution, yet on cultural issues and immigration, you're a traditionalist.

As for those indefensible and dangerous ideologies: The Frankfurt School, and of course Marx himself should be taught at every social studies, civics class, and of course in history, sociology and all relevant fields. Just like SJW daffodils need to be subjected to Faust despite him being a cisgendered, white, heterosexual, eurocentric oppressor no matter if they really want to read only post-modern Maori lesbian woman's poems about female ejaculation, so too should everyone learn who have been the influential minds of history, or the influential minds in their field of study. What is both unjust and academically unqualified is dressing up activism as academia and letting you, the taxpayer, pay for it. But just like reading about influential theories made by the 18th thinkers behind scientific/biological racism does not automatically make you a racist, reading about the development your field of research has made through the ages, does not - automatically anyway - turn you into a Frankfurt School Marxist. I hope you agree with that.

How to slowly replace, or rather persuade to replace the "We must destroy our own culture, because we're bad white people" SJW culture? Well, I recently watched a Ben Shapiro video and I liked his response to an audience member:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5znurXMN0_U&t

Starts at 6:53

Essentially, he's advocating the opposite of what I'm saying, but he's advocating for an emotionalist approach with the intention of making them feel ashamed. And then, you can start discussing rationally with them. But getting that tactic right starts with learning what they themselves hold dear, and what they believe in. Not what you think they believe in, but what they genuinely think they do. Can't undermi...persuade someone's beliefs unless you actually understand them. A historical case in point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretatio_Christiana

Don't fix a tactic that isn't broken..