General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsdiscussionist
I haven't been here much recently, largely because I've been spending a lot of time on discussionist.com.
There's a lot of right wing trolls there, but it is easy to tell that they are right wing trolls because they don't have to hide it.
I highly recommend the site for anyone who is interested in how the right sees Democrats ("To see ourselves as others see us" and all that)
DU gets slandered a lot. But if youre willing to defend Democratic perspectives against statements of those of opposing views its a great site.
Develop your debating skills instead of just getting in petty squabbles with other who in fact agree with us on most points.
(We could use a few more of you.)
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)but, no thanks.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)Educational in that they forced me to think rationally, recognize my own ideology, and respond accordingly.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Gothmog
(145,291 posts)I find it helps to look at both sides of any issue and then formulate my argument. I have a great deal of fun over there
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)The root of wisdom is to assume one is not always right, then seek out people to disagree with. A lot of the time, it ends up strengthening my opinion.
Gothmog
(145,291 posts)However many on the conservatives on Discussionist are really really stupid They hate it when you take apart their posts and call them on stupid positions
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)But unfortunately, I can't refute it either. My experience has been that, eventually, it comes down to what conservatives believe. For example, the soul stuffs itself into the egg-sperm mixture at conception. There's just no way to argue that on a logical basis.
Then there was that one guy who didn't like how liberals were pointing out hypocrisy.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)existentialist
(2,190 posts)It's kind of fun voting to hide some of those off the wall abusive right wing posts.
doc03
(35,340 posts)more enjoyable and even fun on the Discussionist, you don't have people ratting on you if you don't follow the party line 100%.
Please I invite more people on DU to try it out, one thing for sure it is not an echo chamber. Go there and debate with the other side for a change instead of hanging around here and agreeing with everyone or else being alerted on. Oh I am outta here again so don't bother any reply.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)There's a difference between a logically sound debate with rational Eisenhower conservatives and facepalming the shit out of yourself every six seconds to Yahoo-level assholery that's laced with minimum one, usually 3 to 5, logical fallacies per post.
Example: Nixons_Ghost. What the flibbity-fuck do I do with that? You can toss novel after novel (which is pretty much what that dickface wants, for you to give his praxeological horseshit merit) . . . . what's it going to do except waste my time? The guy's an Austrian schooler (PFFFFFFFFFFFFT) who insists supply-side economics never happened, fascism is a LEFT-wing movement and privatizing everything not nailed down would work infinitely better than anything government has ever done. Just, NO.
You know . . . . sometimes stupid is just stupid.
The application of the fallacy leads to two major problems:
* Firstly, it can lead to equal exposure to arguments despite their lack of merits or relevance. This may arise due to a misunderstanding of probability; that two outcomes or positions lead to a probability of 50:50 for each, and so both deserve an equal chance to put themselves forward. In fact, probability is not necessarily equal.
* Secondly, it can lead to the belief that the truth must lie somewhere in-between the two opposing sides, when it's very much possible that one side is completely wrong. In this context the fallacy is sometimes known as the argument to moderation or argumentum ad temperantiam, and may be the result of attempts to reach a compromise between mutually exclusive positions, as often found in political debate where there is not necessarily an objective "truth," as such, to be found behind a political policy.
Avoiding the balance fallacy requires objective criteria for assessing arguments, and cannot rely on just giving all arguments equal exposure for the sake of fairness. Arguments must be assessed using criteria such as formal logic, scholarly consensus and empirical evidence to see if a legitimate controversy exists between two viewpoints. Avoiding the balance fallacy does not entitle someone to the freedom to reject any and all criticism because they claim to have sufficiently "proven" their position, however.
Wikipedia avoids the balance fallacy (to some degree) with its policy of not giving undue weight[4] to minority viewpoints or fringe theories[5] in its articles. RationalWiki, on the other hand, avoids the balance fallacy by calling fringe theories bullshit from start to finish.
Gothmog
(145,291 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 20, 2014, 08:50 AM - Edit history (1)
The conservatives do not deal with facts and can only respond with talking points from the right wing media
There are some interesting debates and the conservatives are really shocked when they find out that their world view is not shared by everyone.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)I am on Discussionist - just not often.
Gothmog
(145,291 posts)They are not happy on a number of threads. The fact that all of the slander directed at Michael Brown keep being disproved has them very very upset
Response to existentialist (Original post)
jambo101 This message was self-deleted by its author.
jambo101
(797 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 15, 2014, 06:28 PM - Edit history (1)
And i'm starting to wonder if this isnt an attempt by DU to cover all the bases with a forum for the left (DU) and a forum for the right (DI) As there seems to be much more rightwing posters over there than originally thought,
The hate Obama and everything else crowd seems to be over at DI in abundance with all their usual tea party rhetoric and their constant whining about everything.
Is this the way it was supposed to go?