"Around here, the only thing we have is our credibility."

[subdued_passion]

"Around here, the only thing we have is our credibility."
I was 'warned' that I should be careful what I say because, "Around here, the only thing we have is our credibility."

Do people on the General Board actually feel "credibility" describes the strength of their respective positions (whatever they may be) and the brilliance with which they engage in rhetorical argument with the "wrong" side (according to their respective viewpoint?)

Seriously?

I can't imagine a junior high debate team alternate would deign to engage most of us after a couple of pouty rounds.

Thoughts?

I've often asked the question of credibility in threads where certain posters come in accusing someone of being an alt and hence incapable of making a valid point. I don't get it. Recently a poster even pointed out how I hadn't been vetted, so I could post but my credibility was somehow at stake.

As far as I am concerned every thread is a new discussion. You build your cred based on how you put forth your viewpoint. I don't enjoy reading copy-pasted arguments or the same old regurgitated fluff.

 

[Recidiva]

Naw...never go anywhere expecting or desiring adoration, although as of late on self reflection that I have discerned that my being a stray kitten as I call them magnet, is probably some subconscious validation seeking.

Isn't that the kitten seeking validation and you giving it?

If there were only you and a kitten in the universe, would you care for that kitten or kick it to the kitten curb because you didn't have an audience to notice?

 

[Recidiva]

I've often asked the question of credibility in threads where certain posters come in accusing someone of being an alt and hence incapable of making a valid point. I don't get it. Recently a poster even pointed out how I hadn't been vetted, so I could post but my credibility was somehow at stake.

As far as I am concerned every thread is a new discussion. You build your cred based on how you put forth your viewpoint. I don't enjoy reading copy-pasted arguments or the same old regurgitated fluff.

Which is a ridiculous argument from my point of view because mostly it's people who know each other talking to each other about what they know.

Someone who I haven't vetted demanding that you be vetted when I don't care about the vetting process...yeah, meaningless other than that people are afraid of listening to words without them being "authorized" first. I think the words make their own authority.

 

[subdued_passion]

agreed, its easy to define the margins.

From my (biased) point of view it seems an awful lot of the ones spoiling for an altercation with me (so I presume, perhaps incorrectly, that they lean left) seem to content themselves with "Nuh, uh!" and "You are wrong", and pretty paltry attacks on my mental acumen.

I don't make a point of slapping down Jen because as you say you can PICTURE her as your daft neighbor, but doesn't it seem likely that she on the right and those on the left of similar debate skills FEEL supported when a position supports theirs? Awful lot of people walking around casting aspersions about others intellect (left and right) when they don't seem to have a mental pot to piss in.

The thing is with 'my dingbat' (and again maybe bias clouds my viewpoint) even when I abhor the poor phrasing, the ad homonym, the veiled racism, I can still see what point she is articulating, and it is often the correct position with faulty structure supporting it.

with 'your' dingbats, there is so little there that you wouldn't know from any one of the white house press non-briefings.

I guess though thats how Jen's poor articulations appear to you with you attributing it (probably correctly) to say, Hannity?

You had me going there for a moment until you said you could see the point she articulates. There's no point and no articulation. She's a parrot who repeats phrases without understanding what they mean and is unable to respond to the simplest questions.

Jenn's unending capacity to look like a fool has made her a popular pin cushion for some people. There's really no sport in that.

You may see no sport in that but there are plenty who do and hence she is a popular pin cushion. She seems pretty sporting about it all though.

I cannot speak to the truth underlying Jen's rants because I am not well versed with your country's politics, but I must say looking at the way some posters choose to mock Jen that if I were her I wouldn't waste time on composing a structured and well thought out argument or a smart comeback.

People need to raise the bar rather than complaining about where it's set.

 

[Que]

Isn't that the kitten seeking validation and you giving it?

If there were only you and a kitten in the universe, would you care for that kitten or kick it to the kitten curb because you didn't have an audience to notice?

I thinking an OBJECTIVE (giggle, voice to text typed jacked off) observer would easily discern that I'm not really helping I'm merely enabling. I know that going in but I tell myself that I can make a small difference.. you know putting a little English on the cue ball to get that out of control vector heading closer to help or at least towards a softer, inevitable bottom.

I've often asked the question of credibility in threads where certain posters come in accusing someone of being an alt and hence incapable of making a valid point. I don't get it. Recently a poster even pointed out how I hadn't been vetted, so I could post but my credibility was somehow at stake.

As far as I am concerned every thread is a new discussion. You build your cred based on how you put forth your viewpoint. I don't enjoy reading copy-pasted arguments or the same old regurgitated fluff.

Well said.

All this discussion of alts I've been many people at many times... sometimes gender neutral, sometimes counterfeit gender... there were reasons and curiosities for each they were all my own and whether I chose to decloak or not I was still a I was still a human being expressing myself as that character what difference does it make?

What competitive advantage would using an alt give you intubate so you could have your own little cheerleaders all parroting your point if your point was validated need cheering if your point was invalid more cheerleaders won't fix its fatal flaws.

 

[Recidiva]

You may see no sport in that but there are plenty who do and hence she is a popular pin cushion. She seems pretty sporting about it all though.

I cannot speak to the truth underlying Jen's rants because I am not well versed with your country's politics, but I must say looking at the way some posters choose to mock Jen that if I were her I wouldn't waste time on composing a structured and well thought out argument or a smart comeback.

People need to raise the bar rather than complaining about where it's set.

Have you tried talking to her about anything? I have and I used to. Unfortunately you can't talk about anything without it coming around to her hatred for the president. Try it. See how it goes.

For me I was disqualified early once I mentioned that I'm married to Ulaven so somehow that makes me a brainless welfare queen.

Give it a try though. See how far you get with civil conversation.

 

[subdued_passion]

Which is a ridiculous argument from my point of view because mostly it's people who know each other talking to each other about what they know.

Someone who I haven't vetted demanding that you be vetted when I don't care about the vetting process...yeah, meaningless other than that people are afraid of listening to words without them being "authorized" first. I think the words make their own authority.

Exactly. Would you agree with an illogical argument that you're not really certain about, ysimply because you {i]know[/i] the poster?

I'm sure all that is great for the purpose of drama. But in a discussion how does it matter?

For me what matters is how well you can argue for the position you have taken up (it may not even necessarily reflect your own beliefs on the subject). Can you make me pause and think. Can you make me want to read up some more. Do you make me recheck the validity of my own position.

 

[Recidiva]

I thinking an OBJECTIVE (giggle, voice to text typed jacked off) observer would easily discern that I'm not really helping I'm merely enabling. I know that going in but I tell myself that I can make a small difference.. you know putting a little English on the cue ball to get that out of control vector heading closer to help or at least towards a softer, inevitable bottom.

Well said.

All this discussion of alts I've been many people at many times... sometimes gender neutral, sometimes counterfeit gender... there were reasons and curiosities for each they were all my own and whether I chose to decloak or not I was still a I was still a human being expressing myself as that character what difference does it make?

What competitive advantage would using an alt give you intubate so you could have your own little cheerleaders all parroting your point if your point was validated need cheering if your point was invalid more cheerleaders won't fix its fatal flaws.

I'm talking literal kittens. So I'd have to get some context to know what you're saying here.

Intubate?

All these cheerleaders are now in the ICU?

 

[Que]

Have you tried talking to her about anything? I have and I used to. Unfortunately you can't talk about anything without it coming around to her hatred for the president. Try it. See how it goes.

For me I was disqualified early once I mentioned that I'm married to Ulaven so somehow that makes me a brainless welfare queen.

Give it a try though. See how far you get with civil conversation.

Laughs...i have this image of you as james carvels wife mary madeline I think, but maybe the non-conservative switched at birth version. Or maybe like bwitched with the sister. Politics aside, your styles of communication couldn't be more different.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Read some David Mamet last night, and he said something I think is true. People interact to get what they want and the rest of it is bullshit.

 

[subdued_passion]

Have you tried talking to her about anything? I have and I used to. Unfortunately you can't talk about anything without it coming around to her hatred for the president. Try it. See how it goes.

For me I was disqualified early once I mentioned that I'm married to Ulaven so somehow that makes me a brainless welfare queen.

Give it a try though. See how far you get with civil conversation.

I've never tried to converse with her. Honestly don't care enough to. I was just pointing out that while people mock her they don't do it in a really intelligent manner.

I find it amusing how no matter what anyone says about her she just keeps posting the same thing, the same way, mistakes intact. She really doesn't seem to care about how she is perceived... that's kinda cool.

 

[Que]

I'm talking literal kittens. So I'd have to get some context to know what you're saying here.

Intubate?

All these cheerleaders are now in the ICU?

Wow! That's so snow road I can't even figure out what I said I think intubate might have been in debate.

When and if I get to the big city today to change out this phone I'll have to take a picture of what the screen looks like. You will all think I'm ridiculously driven to even consider editing on the phone as it is.

And yeah the kittens had two legs rather than four.

Lit has over the years has been a security blanket in times of stress. When isolated it's good to hear voices metaphorically speaking. Currently I'm in the denial phase of grief and putting off by engaging in meaningless debate. Time to rejoin civilization. But its a 200 mile drive.

 

[Que]

Read some David Mamet last night, and he said something I think is true. People interact to get what they want and the rest of it is bullshit.

I THINK that I disagree, but I will have to mull it around a bit. On the receiving end I would tend to agree, I would like to think that I am NOT like that but I have no reason to surmise that I'm anything different than the other mammals on the planet.

Used to be my signature line on one of my long buried identities... I think it's when I was on lit with my then long-time wife.. ( giggle suddenly I hear it in my head me love you long time 5 dollah)

Anyway the sick line was for something from pulp fiction where she had to ask him when you are listening are you listening to understand or are you listening to respond?

His answer was my sig line something about I like to think that I am listening to understand but I have to admit that I probably mostly listen to respond.

It was something I was working on at the time.

Apparently I could have used more work.

 

[Recidiva]

Laughs...i have this image of you as james carvels wife mary madeline I think, but maybe the non-conservative switched at birth version. Or maybe like bwitched with the sister. Politics aside, your styles of communication couldn't be more different.

He's more like Wolverine. Which is a bonus as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Recidiva]

Wow! That's so snow road I can't even figure out what I said I think intubate might have been in debate.

When and if I get to the big city today to change out this phone I'll have to take a picture of what the screen looks like. You will all think I'm ridiculously driven to even consider editing on the phone as it is.

And yeah the kittens had two legs rather than four.

Lit has over the years has been a security blanket in times of stress. When isolated it's good to hear voices metaphorically speaking. Currently I'm in the denial phase of grief and putting off by engaging in meaningless debate. Time to rejoin civilization. But its a 200 mile drive.

More power to you if you're doing this on a phone.

I'm sorry to hear about the grief. I can see how it is a valuable distraction.

 

[subdued_passion]

Do any of you brilliant political analysts found here, try out your arguments on boards frequented by people that are actually knowledgeable about political discourse or it it all cut and paste from instagram?

Does Lit feel like a small pond increasing your fishy-verve?

I always thought it interesting that politics comes up at all here.

I don't get what the end-game is.

Persuasion? You think anyone changes their mind even without anti-bush or anti-obama screeds setting hackles on edge?

If it's to increase one's "credibility", hows that working?

If it is just to sharpen up ones bully-instinct...looks like most of you get an A already.

I've wondered about this myself.

I doubt you can change people's minds with facts. It takes a great deal of integrity for someone to admit (even to themselves) that they were wrong about something. Most will resist that bitter red pill if it means admitting that they were wrong.

I don't think it works as a sounding board because people don't have discussions, they just seem to reiterate the party lines (at least that is how it appears to me).

I think it's more of creating internet buzz. Certain topics repeated enough number of times to get picked up in news trends and such. Which is why I make it a point to argue any counter points I can think of. Many people ignore the posts that they find ignorant or too stupid or dumb. Not realising that when someone does an internet study of these things they see only one side of an argument and assume that that is the public sentiment.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I THINK that I disagree, but I will have to mull it around a bit. On the receiving end I would tend to agree, I would like to think that I am NOT like that but I have no reason to surmise that I'm anything different than the other mammals on the planet.

Used to be my signature line on one of my long buried identities... I think it's when I was on lit with my then long-time wife.. ( giggle suddenly I hear it in my head me love you long time 5 dollah)

Anyway the sick line was for something from pulp fiction where she had to ask him when you are listening are you listening to understand or are you listening to respond?

His answer was my sig line something about I like to think that I am listening to understand but I have to admit that I probably mostly listen to respond.

It was something I was working on at the time.

Apparently I could have used more work.

FO TEN DOLLAH I LOVE YOU TOO MUCH! BABY hahahahaha

I was beaten into submission by my clinical perfessers, to force me to listen to understand. Now I do it too well.

Its depressing to embrace the idea that she's here for a good time NOT a long time. But that's how it is till she's noticed that her sexual appeal account is NFA and she must fall back to her material fortress, to await Death's siege.

Life forces cynicism on us.

 

[Que]

I've wondered about this myself.

I doubt you can change people's minds with facts. It takes a great deal of integrity for someone to admit (even to themselves) that they were wrong about something. Most will resist that bitter red pill if it means admitting that they were wrong.

I don't think it works as a sounding board because people don't have discussions, they just seem to reiterate the party lines (at least that is how it appears to me).

I think it's more of creating internet buzz. Certain topics repeated enough number of times to get picked up in news trends and such. Which is why I make it a point to argue any counter points I can think of. Many people ignore the posts that they find ignorant or too stupid or dumb. Not realising that when someone does an internet study of these things they see only one side of an argument and assume that that is the public sentiment.

Oh I don't think for the most part the Internet is all that sophisticated to that degree of detail.

The analytics of that sort of thing are generally speaking site-specific for example on Twitter people track that kind of trend on Facebook and places like that.

Other than the mighty NSAI don't know that anybody is combing the entire internet and reading at all. Although I don't know- you might be right I mean Google and nother web crawlers go through and I guess they can count those sorts of things up.

back when I was actively blogging I found out on accident somewhat what Google looks for when it decides how to position or rank its search term results.

Obviously not for all of the myriad of search terms but it was interesting every time one of my blogs would come up on page 1 of Google for a particular esoteric search term.

What Google seems to like is original content. I don't think it awards any points for cut and paste I think it pretty much ignores that. It seems to be operating under the premise that readers of blogs want original content they want new content daily and they want monkeys on the typewriter style of combinations of words that have not been seen before by Google. I excelled at that. Did Google understand the ideas that I was presenting? Of course not.

All they knew was hey this is a recently updated blog and the content we don't find anywhere on the web.

I kind of admire the quixotic integrity of your effort though..


Its in line with the axiom that all that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to say nothing.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I've wondered about this myself.

I doubt you can change people's minds with facts. It takes a great deal of integrity for someone to admit (even to themselves) that they were wrong about something. Most will resist that bitter red pill if it means admitting that they were wrong.

I don't think it works as a sounding board because people don't have discussions, they just seem to reiterate the party lines (at least that is how it appears to me).

I think it's more of creating internet buzz. Certain topics repeated enough number of times to get picked up in news trends and such. Which is why I make it a point to argue any counter points I can think of. Many people ignore the posts that they find ignorant or too stupid or dumb. Not realising that when someone does an internet study of these things they see only one side of an argument and assume that that is the public sentiment.

One of the canons of psychotherapy or discussion or social conversation is to avoid pushing your respondent to take a stand with an investment of self esteem. That was Grants mistake when he forced Robert E.Lee to defend Richmond and Petersburg. Lee almost bled Grant to death. Once Lee was out in the open the war was over within a week. Keep the respondent out in the open contemplating and thinking.

 

[subdued_passion]

Oh I don't think for the most part the Internet is all that sophisticated to that degree of detail.

The analytics of that sort of thing are generally speaking site-specific for example on Twitter people track that kind of trend on Facebook and places like that.

Other than the mighty NSAI don't know that anybody is combing the entire internet and reading at all. Although I don't know- you might be right I mean Google and nother web crawlers go through and I guess they can count those sorts of things up.

back when I was actively blogging I found out on accident somewhat what Google looks for when it decides how to position or rank its search term results.

Obviously not for all of the myriad of search terms but it was interesting every time one of my blogs would come up on page 1 of Google for a particular esoteric search term.

What Google seems to like is original content. I don't think it awards any points for cut and paste I think it pretty much ignores that. It seems to be operating under the premise that readers of blogs want original content they want new content daily and they want monkeys on the typewriter style of combinations of words that have not been seen before by Google. I excelled at that. Did Google understand the ideas that I was presenting? Of course not.

All they knew was hey this is a recently updated blog and the content we don't find anywhere on the web.

I kind of admire the quixotic integrity of your effort though..


Its in line with the axiom that all that it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to say nothing.

You'd be amazed at the kind of analysis being done. There are sites that look for people talking about controversial topics just to get a feel of public sentiment. I also know of sites that actually analyse every thread created for how original, controversial, engaging posters are on a particular thread.

But, I'd do it any way. Just because if a lie is repeated often enough it can be mistaken for the truth. Our memory is limited and wont to play tricks on us.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You'd be amazed at the kind of analysis being done. There are sites that look for people talking about controversial topics just to get a feel of public sentiment. I also know of sites that actually analyse every thread created for how original, controversial, engaging posters are on a particular thread.

But, I'd do it any way. Just because if a lie is repeated often enough it can be mistaken for the truth. Our memory is limited and wont to play tricks on us.

Its a fact. People embrace message saturation. Its how advertising works.

 

[subdued_passion]

One of the canons of psychotherapy or discussion or social conversation is to avoid pushing your respondent to take a stand with an investment of self esteem. That was Grants mistake when he forced Robert E.Lee to defend Richmond and Petersburg. Lee almost bled Grant to death. Once Lee was out in the open the war was over within a week. Keep the respondent out in the open contemplating and thinking.

Unfortunately a lot of discussions rather quickly devolve to personal attacks. The problem is that because the people engaging are long time posters who seem to already know how the other is going to respond. The contempt that comes naturally with the familiar.

Many of the really engaging discussions on this board have been ones where members have expressed their opinion or belief about something. How can self-esteem not be involved in such cases?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Unfortunately a lot of discussions rather quickly devolve to personal attacks. The problem is that because the people engaging are long time posters who seem to already know how the other is going to respond. The contempt that comes naturally with the familiar.

Many of the really engaging discussions on this board have been ones where members have expressed their opinion or belief about something. How can self-esteem not be involved in such cases?

The best time for a personal attack is following a gaffe that others recognize and comment on. In most cases your respondents morale collapses.

 

[subdued_passion]

The best time for a personal attack is following a gaffe that others recognize and comment on. In most cases your respondents morale collapses.

That's great if all you're looking to do is to win an argument.

I'm not looking for a win. A well rounded discussion is a win for me because it forces my mind to open up to new information and a different way of thinking.

A retreating enemy is great. But who said that we were enemies?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

That's great if all you're looking to do is to win an argument.

I'm not looking for a win. A well rounded discussion is a win for me because it forces my mind to open up to new information and a different way of thinking.

A retreating enemy is great. But who said that we were enemies?

How long do you respect a respondent who cooperates with your desire? A minute? Less?

I agree with Mamet, again. The drama always contaminates the interaction.