Hypocrisy of the left

[turtlespeed 226]

6 hours ago, jakee said:

That's an impossible conclusion to draw. Why do you think austere religious scholars are great leaders? Personally I don't think the discription carries any positive connotations at all, though I know it would for others. It definitely doesn't mean that, though. Also consider that was the second of three they used, the first calling him 'terrorist in chief', the third 'extremist leader', and they immediately apologised for ever using the one you posted. 

 

You, on the other hand, haven't even acknowledged the absurdity of your claim that the Ted talk chick represents leftist hypocrisy towards pedophiles, let alone apologised for it. Funny how often the right's attacks on the left backfire like that. Almost as if they're wrong most of the time.

Is this an example of "sealioning" that was brought up earlier?

[mistercwood 287]

29 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Is this an example of "sealioning" that was brought up earlier?

No.

The only easy examples I can call to mind on SC are Brent's on anything AGW - state that you just want to use the facts/data, when people present facts/data, explain how the data isn't quite right and move the goalposts again, while insisting you are being the reasonable and consistent one.

I honestly can't recall anyone else doing any sealioning here in ages.

[turtlespeed 226]

28 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

No.

The only easy examples I can call to mind on SC are Brent's on anything AGW - state that you just want to use the facts/data, when people present facts/data, explain how the data isn't quite right and move the goalposts again, while insisting you are being the reasonable and consistent one.

I honestly can't recall anyone else doing any sealioning here in ages.

I'd never heard of it.

Sealioning

A subtle form of trolling involving "bad-faith" questions. You disingenuously frame your conversation as a sincere request to be enlightened, placing the burden of educating you entirely on the other party. If your bait is successful, the other party may engage, painstakingly laying out their logic and evidence in the false hope of helping someone learn. In fact you are attempting to harass or waste the time of the other party, and have no intention of truly entertaining their point of view. Instead, you react to each piece of information by misinterpreting it or requesting further clarification, ad nauseum. The name "sea-lioning" comes from a Wondermark comic strip.

 

[mistercwood 287]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

I'd never heard of it.

Neither had I until I came across the comic strip in question, it's useful to be aware of because it can be done quite subtly. IMO it's one of the worst trolls because it wraps itself in an earnestness to engage in good faith, which is something that should be encouraged a hell of a lot more in most online discussion.

The comic for reference, if you hadn't seen it in your travels (or for anyone else really):

[jakee 1,563]

6 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Is this an example of "sealioning" that was brought up earlier?

Obviously not - but that is.

[jakee 1,563]

5 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I'd never heard of it.

Then why ask if my post is an example of it? What exactly did you think was wrong with that post that made it like a form of trolling?

Or did you just say that because you saw an opportunity to get a rise while appearing polite?

[mistercwood 287]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Then why ask if my post is an example of it? What exactly did you think was wrong with that post that made it like a form of trolling?

Or did you just say that because you saw an opportunity to get a rise while appearing polite?

Can you go one day please without pouncing on his every post assuming the worst possible intent? The bickering between you two is just so damned tedious lately and you BOTH have hefty amounts of responsibility for that state of affairs.

It would be nice if people could give each other just a little bit of the benefit of the doubt when something *could* be a dig but equally might not be.

[jakee 1,563]

10 hours ago, mistercwood said:

Can you go one day please without pouncing on his every post assuming the worst possible intent?

What intent can you assume when someone asks if your post is a passive aggressive troll?

[mistercwood 287]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

What intent can you assume when someone asks if your post is a passive aggressive troll?

That he actually didn't know what sealioning was.

[jakee 1,563]

1 hour ago, mistercwood said:

That he actually didn't know what sealioning was.

The post in which he saw it mentioned stated that it was a form of trolling. The post after that gave a detailed explanation of the behaviour. There is no way he did not know that, therefore by accusing me of trolling but in a way in which he can claim he was 'only asking a question' he actually was sealioning (which is a repeat MO of his - sometimes he even claims he was only asking a question when people challenge posts of his that were flat out statements of fact or opinion).

 

In this case, since he now has you fighting his battle for him, it seems his sealioning was successful.

 

Edit: see below. Told you so.

Edited August 18, 2020 by jakee

[turtlespeed 226]

1 hour ago, mistercwood said:

That he actually didn't know what sealioning was.

I didn't - this what i had to go on.

Quote

"Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate"

The question seemed to me like it could possibly fit that description.  So, I asked.

Thanks for the reply BTW.

I did go back and look further into it.

[jakee 1,563]

7 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I didn't - this what i had to go on.

If you had the definition of sealioning to go on, in what sense did you not know what sealioning was?

Quote

The question seemed to me like it could possibly fit that description.  So, I asked.

So my question stands - what made you think my post met that definition? Why did you need to ask about that particular post? It is blatantly obvious that it wasn't sealioning.

Edited August 18, 2020 by jakee

[turtlespeed 226]

6 minutes ago, jakee said:

If you had the definition of sealioning to go on, in what sense did you not know what sealioning was?

So my question stands - what made you think my post met that definition? Why did you need to ask about that particular post? It is blatantly obvious that it wasn't sealioning.

This question right here.

Quote

Why do you think austere religious scholars are great leaders? 

Obviously, Airdvr doesn't think that.  Why would you ask him why he did?

It seemed to me like you wanted him to waste his time answering, and getting further drawn into your argument.

So, it seemed to fit, and I asked.

[jakee 1,563]

7 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

This question right here.

Obviously, Airdvr doesn't think that.  Why would you ask him why he did?

Because I'm calling out his dishonesty, just like I always have to do with you.

 

Airdvr said the WaPo 'obviously thinks Baghdadi was a great leader' because they posted a healine that called him an austere religious scholar. For his post to be honest, Airdvr must think that calling someone an austere religious scholar means they are a great leader. As you rightly say, you and I both know that's not true and that Airdvr is lying just so that he can post a dig at a leftist organisation, but it's not any form of trolling to call him on that.

 

Quote

It seemed to me like you wanted him to waste his time answering, and getting further drawn into your argument.

So, it seemed to fit, and I asked.

But you know that it didn't, for several reasons. First, asking questions isn't always sealioning, and asking rhetorical questions isn't sealioning. Then, in the same post I flat out stated my opinion that he was wrong, this is incompatible with sealioning. Further, sealioning (as was stated in the definition which you read) is characterised by a constant facade of politeness and civility by the offender. Does that sound like me? Does it fuck, and not even you are dishonest enough to claim otherwise. Think what you want about my posting style but I own my opinions, I post what I think, and when I disagree with someone they'll know exactly why and by how much. I'm not hiding anything behond questions I can disown when convenient and you know it.

 

You, on the otherhand regularly fit all criteria to a tee. How often do you admonish other posters for reacting harshly to you when you were 'only asking a question'? That is sealioning.

Edited August 19, 2020 by jakee

[olofscience 489]

3 hours ago, jakee said:

Airdvr said the WaPo 'obviously thinks Baghdadi was a great leader' because they posted a headline that called him an austere religious scholar. For his post to be honest, Airdvr must think that calling someone an austere religious scholar means they are a great leader.

The logic is as simple as it gets.

But the attempts of Trump supporters to twist, distract and deflect are really fascinating. They also think they are "independent thinkers" but so predictably parrot right wing media and Trump. In general it's actually getting very easy to predict their arguments in advance.

However for some arguments Trump basically makes it impossible to defend so we get silence on a particular topic. But when the topic shifts to a slightly grey area again, they'll resume posting.

[wmw999 2,541]

4 hours ago, jakee said:

Airdvr said the WaPo 'obviously thinks Baghdadi was a great leader' because they posted a healine that called him an austere religious scholar. For his post to be honest, Airdvr must think that calling someone an austere religious scholar means they are a great leader. As you rightly say, you and I both know that's not true and that Airdvr is lying just so that he can post a dig at a leftist organisation, but it's not any form of trolling to call him on that.

In some Christian traditions, austerity is seen as a positive. The undisputed fact that WaPo took the headline down is an indication that they recognize this. The level of offense was higher than I thought warranted, but I don't think callng someone a liar because they disagree with you is very productive.

Wendy P.

[jakee 1,563]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

In some Christian traditions, austerity is seen as a positive. The undisputed fact that WaPo took the headline down is an indication that they recognize this. The level of offense was higher than I thought warranted, but I don't think callng someone a liar because they disagree with you is very productive.

Wendy P.

And in some Christian traditions sobriety is seen as a positive but no one would accuse you of thinking Hitler was a great leader if you described him as teetotal.

 

Airdvr KNOWS that, and he knows the WaPo did not say anything that could be interpreted as saying Baghdadi was as a great leader, he’s just stirring up partisan shit. So in this case, I disagree with him because he’s lying. When even Turtlespeed agrees that he obviously didn’t mean what he said, what’s the problem with pointing it out?

Edited August 19, 2020 by jakee

[airdvr 210]

There were many things WaPo might have said about Bagdadi...

Baghdadi would become directly involved in ISIL's atrocities and human rights violations. These include the genocide of Yazidis in Iraq, extensive sexual slavery, organized rape, floggings, and systematic executions. He directed terrorist activities and massacres. He embraced brutality as part of the organization's propaganda efforts, producing videos displaying sexual slavery and executions via hacking, stoning, and burning.[14][15] Baghdadi himself was a rapist who kept several personal sex slaves.[16][17]

Instead they chose to call him an austere religious scholar.

[kallend 2,106]

2 minutes ago, airdvr said:

There were many things WaPo might have said about Bagdadi...

Baghdadi would become directly involved in ISIL's atrocities and human rights violations. These include the genocide of Yazidis in Iraq, extensive sexual slavery, organized rape, floggings, and systematic executions. He directed terrorist activities and massacres. He embraced brutality as part of the organization's propaganda efforts, producing videos displaying sexual slavery and executions via hacking, stoning, and burning.[14][15] Baghdadi himself was a rapist who kept several personal sex slaves.[16][17]

Instead they chose to call him an austere religious scholar.

So you're ADMITTING that the "great leader" thing was stuff YOU invented based on what WaPo "might have said", but didn't.

 

[airdvr 210]

2 minutes ago, kallend said:

So you're ADMITTING that the "great leader" thing was stuff YOU invented based on what WaPo "might have said", but didn't.

 

Don't get so excited John.  I know you're pumped at some perceived "gotcha" moment but it doesn't exist.  If WaPo was going to point out that Trump's brother had filed suit against his niece they could have easily said Baghdadi was a leader of ISIS.  The mere fact that they retracted the headline proves this.

[airdvr 210]

I guess her father had no clue that he might want to avoid public places like bars and restaurants.  Wow.

Apparently only Trump supporters have died in AZ.

 

Edited August 19, 2020 by airdvr

[SkyDekker 1,465]

12 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I guess her father had no clue that he might want to avoid public places like bars and restaurants.  Wow.

Apparently only Trump supporters have died in AZ.

 

Probably because people like you have been downplaying the corona-virus from the start. People like you cause other people to die. But, we all know how important a haircut is right.....

[jakee 1,563]

3 hours ago, airdvr said:

There were many things WaPo might have said about Bagdadi...

Baghdadi would become directly involved in ISIL's atrocities and human rights violations. These include the genocide of Yazidis in Iraq, extensive sexual slavery, organized rape, floggings, and systematic executions. He directed terrorist activities and massacres. He embraced brutality as part of the organization's propaganda efforts, producing videos displaying sexual slavery and executions via hacking, stoning, and burning.[14][15] Baghdadi himself was a rapist who kept several personal sex slaves.[16][17]

Instead they chose to call him an austere religious scholar.

Have you read the obituary?

[jakee 1,563]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

Don't get so excited John.  I know you're pumped at some perceived "gotcha" moment but it doesn't exist.  If WaPo was going to point out that Trump's brother had filed suit against his niece they could have easily said Baghdadi was a leader of ISIS.  The mere fact that they retracted the headline proves this.

The headline you posted explicitly and unmissably states that he was the leader of Islamic State.

So uh... yeah. Gotcha. 

 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

9 minutes ago, jakee said:

The headline you posted explicitly and unmissably states that he was the leader of Islamic State.

So uh... yeah. Gotcha. 

 

This reminds me of that lady who didn't realize she was on "Obamacare" while railing against it.