Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,821
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    The interesting part here being, who gets to determine what's bullshit and burning up other people's time? I get very few people in this very forum actually allowing me the sincerity of my political beliefs, why I hold them, and why I think they're best for the country in the long term. I want these political theorists to be furthest from the power to handicap debates for their own misguided views, because they can't even engage honest debaters in an internet forum, much less improve debate rules by ... making them less like debates.

    (And an awful lot of this reduces to claiming the American people are too dumb to evaluate the BS, see through the lies, and need a crutch to help them appreciate the debate. I heartily disagree with that claim)
    Considering I can't recall the last time you told your political beliefs when they weren't all either based on authoritarian racist/homophobic shit based on protecting and putting one class of people above others or hogum economics that never actually were shown to work or grossly missunderstood.
    Are you surprised people don't tend to respect your stances?

    Like this saying that the moderators shouldn't call out lies. That's the point of moderators.
    - Lars

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post



    It honestly seems like you don't understand the concept of a debate.
    Just like all the other stuff he doesn't seem to understand he does. He is just here to sow discontent.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    *ahem*



    You don't get to make that response.

    Claiming someone is too old to host the debates, but not to old to run for the office that debate is about, is hypocrisy. Or, just lying.
    It's lying. He has been a broker of dishonesty since he started posting.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    If the quality, scheduling, moderating, and planning of the debates have been this bad, why continue putting them under the umbrella of such a decrepit organization?

    Nobody seriously looked at the topic of presidential debates and came to the conclusion that a bunch of 70 and 80 year olds need to continue to run them.
    You don't like it because every Republican candidate gets shit on because they are fact checked in real time. They can't lie their way through debates and get away with it like they lie to you daily.

  4. #44
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    19,214
    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    I can't recall ever actually seeing a post that displays any of the above, tbh. And it certainly isn't from a lack of you posting, or people stopping you posting about them.
    Then it would just be too easy to take apart. He can never actually state his beliefs because then he would theoretically have to defend them and he always has to be on the attack. Its also why he doesn't want the moderators to do fact checking.
    Last edited by Glorious Leader; 2022-04-15 at 12:00 PM.
    The hammer comes down:
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Normal should be reduced in difficulty. Heroic should be reduced in difficulty.
    And the tiny fraction for whom heroic raids are currently well tuned? Too bad,so sad! With the arterial bleed of subs the fastest it's ever been, the vanity development that gives you guys your own content is no longer supportable.

  5. #45
    The Insane Kathandira's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ziltoidia 9
    Posts
    19,444
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Moderators are there for keeping time and asking relevant questions on important issues to voters. Leave fact checks, or opinion journalism, to publications after the fact.
    I can almost agree with that. However I would dare to guess that a very large portion of voters do not keep on the pulse of the election news. They tune in to the big things, like the debate. And afterward, they don't go hunting for fact checking sources. They take the word of the people who should be expected to be honest.
    RIP Genn Greymane, Permabanned on 8.22.18

    Your name will carry on through generations, and will never be forgotten.

  6. #46
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathandira View Post
    I can almost agree with that.
    I can agree on the part about opinions, yeah. But when Trump says things like "I am worth 10 billion dollars and there is 42% unemployment" it would be moderator bias to let those objective lies go unchallenged.

    The job of the referee is not to tell the team "it's 3rd and 25, you have to call a passing play". The job of the referee is to say "you have 25 men on the field, that's a foul".

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    So far your only problem with it is that they're "old", which isn't an actual problem. You don't highlight specific problems, nor how putting younger people in those positions would magically fix the problems.
    I cited the first few problems I had in other posts, and the choice of moderators and presentation of topics are typical of the age cohort deciding upon them. Some of the debates felt like rehashes of the major topics of the 80s and 90s. I've assigned blame, and you're free to defend boomers styling the debates. You don't have to admit it, but that's your choice.

    No, it's bad faith. Just like this comment.
    Presidential debates prior to voting is bad faith in your eyes. Okay dokey.

    They literally can. Nobody is forced to vote before listening to the first debate.

    Should the debates be earlier? Sure, that's a discussion to be had. But this is rank dishonesty from you. Like, straight up a lie.
    I'm not opposed to you deciding to argue that voters choose to vote without the benefit of being able to choose to view the debate, but if you could stop smothering it with "and it's bad faith to argue otherwise," then maybe I think you actually believe your argument. The more you smother anyone arguing otherwise with accusations of bad faith, the more I think it's because you weakly believe otherwise, or are ashamed to admit doubts in your own arguments.

    No, it's just highlighting your own inconsistency.
    This is your attempt two or three to defend the status quo without being seen to defend the status quo. If only organizations of old, white, and predominantly men had people like you to be their champion everywhere.

    Oh, there aren't moderators? I thought there were debate moderators in play here. You know, neutral parties there to ask the questions, guide the debate flow in allowing for multiple exchanges, enforce the rules that both parties agreed to in the debate to ensure fairness, and if they so choose to disallow blatant lies to be told on the debate stage without being checked that's 100% up to them.

    If one political party has a problem with this - and only one political party does have a problem with this - that say more about that political parties relationship with the truth, and their reliance on its absence.
    Moderator job, moderator job, moderator job, oh now they're fact checker debate participant instead of moderator. Your problem is with moderators moving above their station. They cease to moderate the conversation, but to actively participate in debating what points are valid. Obviously, I'm very much opposed to that, despite all this whining about how it's bad faith to dare question it.

    Oh, because literally debates devolving into candidates accusing the other of lying, with nobody from the "other" side believing the opposing candidate and instead believing "their guy" would be productive?

    You do realize how inherently hilariously pointless your proposal would make debates.

    Moderators perform that role because they're a neutral party in the debate. The participants aren't neutral.
    Moderators can't be a neutral party when they're asked to interject into arguments that it's the debate opponent's job to make. They even have a hard time just letting people finish sentences as time expires without being seen to favor one or another.

    It honestly seems like you don't understand the concept of a debate.
    Right back at you. But seeing as how the 'you're bad faith, no you're bad faith--you don't understand the concept of a debate, no you don't understand the concept of a debate' maybe we best leave it here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    It was pretty quick seeing you flip from we need to get rid of the old people to age doesn't matter. Thanks for that. Didn't take much effort on my part.
    I'm giving you an example of some actual argument regarding age. If you'd like to make it. I don't know. The "but GOP old" isn't an actual argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    You said the Commission was too old to run debates, it was pointed out all your candidates were just as old, you choked and tried to make it about me. It isn't. It's about you not having a point.
    All the candidates of both parties are too old, and I favor term limits. I wouldn't hold up Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer as examples of the Democrats showing Republican candidates are too old! I'll start at the commission having no clue about the internet era, modern topics of debate, and who to moderate, and I seek their irrelevance. Then we can see if the current class of politicians can be challenged by term limits making them time out of national elected public office before having served 36 years in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Muzjhath View Post
    Considering I can't recall the last time you told your political beliefs when they weren't all either based on authoritarian racist/homophobic shit based on protecting and putting one class of people above others or hogum economics that never actually were shown to work or grossly missunderstood.
    Debate quality is how long it goes before trolls start leveling the racist/homophobic accusations. All your political beliefs are authoritarian racist/homophobic, hogum economics shown to never actually work, now help me get moderators the hall monitor debates as they ought. Uhh ... the bias and misrepresentation is so endemic now that I wouldn't trust you to moderate a debate for local dog catcher.

    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    You don't like it because every Republican candidate gets shit on because they are fact checked in real time. They can't lie their way through debates and get away with it like they lie to you daily.
    I like when they get fact checked in real time. That's the job of live social media outlets. They debate the person opposite with only time controls and subject guardrails and that generates any claims that some journalist thinks are misleading, dead wrong, or missing context ... and then those fact checks get fact checked too.

    Quote Originally Posted by UnifiedDivide View Post
    I can't recall ever actually seeing a post that displays any of the above, tbh. And it certainly isn't from a lack of you posting, or people stopping you posting about them.
    It's kind of the nature of the divide in America. Left can't allow the right to actually seek the betterment of the nation for the future, and right can't allow left to do the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathandira View Post
    I can almost agree with that. However I would dare to guess that a very large portion of voters do not keep on the pulse of the election news. They tune in to the big things, like the debate. And afterward, they don't go hunting for fact checking sources. They take the word of the people who should be expected to be honest.
    I agree with you in part, and disagree with you in part. I do think the majorities just tune in to what politicians are saying right before an election, and in times of war or inflation/energy costs/recession. They also seek fact checks and neutral sources the fact check bases itself on to settle contentious issues during the debate. The old saying goes, "How can you tell a politician is lying? If their lips are moving." Americans do not give their politicians abundant presumption of truth-telling, but the kicker is, they also don't give journalists and fact-checkers the presumption that they're neutral and won't selectively quote facts and omit others to serve their own stated and unstated agendas. As journalistic institutions recruited more from graduates of elite colleges instead of working-class people who smoked too much and drank coffee like addicts, their implicit biases grew to mimic the cohort staffing their offices. Later, alternative media overcorrected for the problem by explicitly adopting biased viewpoints counter to the mainstream thought that preceded them. I do view politicians lying as a first-order problem as old as time itself. The class purporting to hold them to account, but many times serving to defend and protect them for political ends, is a second order problem that's now very widely understood. And people that think neutral fact-checkers stand above it all, and would solve the problems if their diagnoses and argument from facts was force-fed to debate viewers, are dangerously naive.
    Last edited by tehdang; 2022-04-15 at 04:24 PM.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    are whataboutisming pretty darn hard.
    Irony and hypocrisy so thick you could cut it with a knife.

  9. #49
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,906
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    All the candidates of both parties are too old
    Yeah, sorry, "all lives matter" isn't going to cut it. The Party of Trump is the one pushing for changes. You can't defend those changes with "the members are too old" without blatantly admitting hypocrisy. None of this "both sides" handwaving, the Democrats aren't pushing for change here. That's you and your friends pushing for change here.

    This means your options are twofold.

    One, you could admit that your concerns about the Commission being too old is also reflected by the party pushing for those changes being too old as well, and therefore, that the party pushing for those changes would have to make changes themselves -- and if they don't make those changes, their requests for change for others that they refuse to follow themselves should not be taken seriously.

    Or!

    Two, you could admit your statement about the Commission being too old should not be taken seriously -- that you misstated, changed your mind, were a hypocrite or outright lied.

    Sorry, there is no third option. The RNC is the one asking for change, and you're backing those change with your statements about age. Hiding behind "all lives matter" isn't fooling anyone.

    And again: your continued statements that moderators should not fact-check is bullshit. If Trump says, in the debates, there's 42% unemployment, and the moderator lets such a blatant lie go, that's biased towards Trump. Easily destroyed objective lies are not debate. That's fiction. That's fantasy. We are not interested in electing the Mayor of Fantasy Land, nor are we interested in electing someone so clueless or legit insane they think the unemployment is 42%. Well, maybe you are, but most people are not.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Calfredd View Post
    Irony and hypocrisy so thick you could cut it with a knife.
    If your first instinct about looking at the age of the commission running the debate, is to sidetrack to the average age of voters in a political party, then you've got some serious internal searching to do. It might start with asking, what is the difference between an American voting and a member of a commission deciding on the rules, topics, personnel, outlets, venues & format of a nationally televised presidential debate?
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  11. #51
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,906
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    If your first instinct about looking at the age of the commission running the debate--
    *LOUD ANNOYIHG BUZZER*

    That was your post, not @Calfredd 's.

  12. #52
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,895
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Moderator job, moderator job, moderator job, oh now they're fact checker debate participant instead of moderator. Your problem is with moderators moving above their station. They cease to moderate the conversation, but to actively participate in debating what points are valid. Obviously, I'm very much opposed to that, despite all this whining about how it's bad faith to dare question it.
    Holding participants to basic ethical standards of honesty is not being a participant in the debate. It's a moderator's job, as you put it, and failure to do so is bias or dishonesty, itself. Whether by the moderator's own choice or the organizer's systemic bias or dishonesty.

    You're literally pushing for bias and dishonesty in debates, and fighting against measures to protect against such. That's your entire argument, here; that your chosen candidates should be able to act unethically and dishonestly and moderators should not be able to prevent that.

    Moderators can't be a neutral party when they're asked to interject into arguments that it's the debate opponent's job to make.
    That's just obviously false. You're making shit up.

    Correcting objectively false claims is neutral. Unless you're admitting that one side in the debate has no objectively justifiable argument and their bad faith dishonesty needs to be given a false veneer of validity, you have no business making such an argument. But you are, so we can tell what that means.

    Debate quality is how long it goes before trolls start leveling the racist/homophobic accusations. All your political beliefs are authoritarian racist/homophobic, hogum economics shown to never actually work, now help me get moderators the hall monitor debates as they ought. Uhh ... the bias and misrepresentation is so endemic now that I wouldn't trust you to moderate a debate for local dog catcher.
    Empty tone policing.

    If those claims are inaccurate, then it falls under the stance against dishonesty and unethical conduct we've been describing, already, the very moderation you oppose.

    And if they're not inaccurate, then they're not just valid debate arguments, they're necessary, because underscoring the opponent's unethical and abusive conduct is part of the process.

    You're whining because your side's rhetoric has been objectively proven to be bullshit and based mostly on petty bigotries. Rather than expect better of your own chosen representatives, you're whining that they're being correctly and accurately described as exactly who they are.


  13. #53
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,906
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    That's just obviously false. You're making shit up.
    I do have to wonder what it means when someone suggests the refs do nothing when they catch one side cheating. That doesn't sound like someone who wants to see two teams fight based on their skills and talents. That sounds like someone who wants their team to win, regardless of the score.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Yeah, sorry, "all lives matter" isn't going to cut it. The Party of Trump is the one pushing for changes. You can't defend those changes with "the members are too old" without blatantly admitting hypocrisy. None of this "both sides" handwaving, the Democrats aren't pushing for change here. That's you and your friends pushing for change here.
    Two problems can exist at once. Politicians spend too much time in public office, and thus the average age is too detached from the average they represent. Also, a commission setting important rules, now looking like it's finally going the way of the dodo, can be too old to make good decisions on important topics. Indeed, their lack of good decision making I am blaming, partly, on being disconnected from the modern debates as they occur today, not the dividing topics of the 80s and 90s.[/quote]

    This means your options are twofold.
    The definition of a false choice.

    One, you could admit that your concerns about the Commission being too old is also reflected by the party pushing for those changes being too old as well, and therefore, that the party pushing for those changes would have to make changes themselves -- and if they don't make those changes, their requests for change for others that they refuse to follow themselves should not be taken seriously.
    Seriously missing for the second time that voters in a single political party aren't deciding the rules for debate.

    Or!

    Two, you could admit your statement about the Commission being too old should not be taken seriously -- that you misstated, changed your mind, were a hypocrite or outright lied.

    Sorry, there is no third option. The RNC is the one asking for change, and you're backing those change with your statements about age. Hiding behind "all lives matter" isn't fooling anyone.

    And again: your continued statements that moderators should not fact-check is bullshit. If Trump says, in the debates, there's 42% unemployment, and the moderator lets such a blatant lie go, that's biased towards Trump. Easily destroyed objective lies are not debate. That's fiction. That's fantasy. We are not interested in electing the Mayor of Fantasy Land, nor are we interested in electing someone so clueless or legit insane they think the unemployment is 42%. Well, maybe you are, but most people are not.
    They're too old, and they will be replaced. Hiding behind an "all lives matter" narrative is stumbling into "I cannot view two problems as being two problems, they must be the same problem." I can accept voter demographic political party preference, even as it changes slowly over time. They don't write debating rules. They vote on their interests. So we're going to have deep problems not speaking past each other if you sloganize "all lives matter" instead of tailoring arguments to the subject matter.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    *LOUD ANNOYIHG BUZZER*

    That was your post, not @Calfredd 's.
    I criticize their decisions and say it's tied to them being old and out of touch. He chose to connect it to the age of voters in a political party. Please recognize the difference. Maybe you only read as far as you quoted? It's not even the complete sentence, after all.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  15. #55
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,906
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Two problems can exist at once.
    That's the problem, it is both, and you're defending solving only one of them. You can't defend saying the Commission is too old, without saying the RNC is too old also. Otherwise you're saying it's not a problem for both -- and that's called "hypocrisy".

    Or, it's neither, and your age-based statement should not be taken seriously either.

    "All lives matter" won't work here. The DNC is fine with things the way they are.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    He chose to--
    He was responding to you. Your first instinct, was age. Don't put this on Calfredd for responding to your post when the topic was yours.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Presidential debates prior to voting is bad faith in your eyes. Okay dokey.
    No, your framing of this continues to be an outright lie. Nobody is forced to vote before the first debates. Literally ever voter can wait until the first debate, or all debates, are complete before casting their vote.

    This. Is. A. Lie.

    Stop lying.

    I won't bother with the rest until we can at least get to the core of this brazen, blatant dishonesty from your part.

  17. #57
    The Insane Kathandira's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ziltoidia 9
    Posts
    19,444
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I cited the first few problems I had in other posts, and the choice of moderators and presentation of topics are typical of the age cohort deciding upon them. Some of the debates felt like rehashes of the major topics of the 80s and 90s. I've assigned blame, and you're free to defend boomers styling the debates. You don't have to admit it, but that's your choice.

    Presidential debates prior to voting is bad faith in your eyes. Okay dokey.

    I'm not opposed to you deciding to argue that voters choose to vote without the benefit of being able to choose to view the debate, but if you could stop smothering it with "and it's bad faith to argue otherwise," then maybe I think you actually believe your argument. The more you smother anyone arguing otherwise with accusations of bad faith, the more I think it's because you weakly believe otherwise, or are ashamed to admit doubts in your own arguments.

    This is your attempt two or three to defend the status quo without being seen to defend the status quo. If only organizations of old, white, and predominantly men had people like you to be their champion everywhere.

    Moderator job, moderator job, moderator job, oh now they're fact checker debate participant instead of moderator. Your problem is with moderators moving above their station. They cease to moderate the conversation, but to actively participate in debating what points are valid. Obviously, I'm very much opposed to that, despite all this whining about how it's bad faith to dare question it.

    Moderators can't be a neutral party when they're asked to interject into arguments that it's the debate opponent's job to make. They even have a hard time just letting people finish sentences as time expires without being seen to favor one or another.

    Right back at you. But seeing as how the 'you're bad faith, no you're bad faith--you don't understand the concept of a debate, no you don't understand the concept of a debate' maybe we best leave it here.

    I'm giving you an example of some actual argument regarding age. If you'd like to make it. I don't know. The "but GOP old" isn't an actual argument.

    All the candidates of both parties are too old, and I favor term limits. I wouldn't hold up Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer as examples of the Democrats showing Republican candidates are too old! I'll start at the commission having no clue about the internet era, modern topics of debate, and who to moderate, and I seek their irrelevance. Then we can see if the current class of politicians can be challenged by term limits making them time out of national elected public office before having served 36 years in it.

    Debate quality is how long it goes before trolls start leveling the racist/homophobic accusations. All your political beliefs are authoritarian racist/homophobic, hogum economics shown to never actually work, now help me get moderators the hall monitor debates as they ought. Uhh ... the bias and misrepresentation is so endemic now that I wouldn't trust you to moderate a debate for local dog catcher.

    I like when they get fact checked in real time. That's the job of live social media outlets. They debate the person opposite with only time controls and subject guardrails and that generates any claims that some journalist thinks are misleading, dead wrong, or missing context ... and then those fact checks get fact checked too.

    It's kind of the nature of the divide in America. Left can't allow the right to actually seek the betterment of the nation for the future, and right can't allow left to do the same.

    I agree with you in part, and disagree with you in part. I do think the majorities just tune in to what politicians are saying right before an election, and in times of war or inflation/energy costs/recession. They also seek fact checks and neutral sources the fact check bases itself on to settle contentious issues during the debate. The old saying goes, "How can you tell a politician is lying? If their lips are moving." Americans do not give their politicians abundant presumption of truth-telling, but the kicker is, they also don't give journalists and fact-checkers the presumption that they're neutral and won't selectively quote facts and omit others to serve their own stated and unstated agendas. As journalistic institutions recruited more from graduates of elite colleges instead of working-class people who smoked too much and drank coffee like addicts, their implicit biases grew to mimic the cohort staffing their offices. Later, alternative media overcorrected for the problem by explicitly adopting biased viewpoints counter to the mainstream thought that preceded them. I do view politicians lying as a first-order problem as old as time itself. The class purporting to hold them to account, but many times serving to defend and protect them for political ends, is a second order problem that's now very widely understood. And people that think neutral fact-checkers stand above it all, and would solve the problems if their diagnoses and argument from facts was force-fed to debate viewers, are dangerously naive.
    You give the general masses way too much credit.
    RIP Genn Greymane, Permabanned on 8.22.18

    Your name will carry on through generations, and will never be forgotten.

  18. #58
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,906
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Seriously missing for the second time that voters in a single political party aren't deciding the rules for debate.
    You...you do know what thread you're posting in, right? Did you read the OP? I don't think you read the OP. A single party is making a push for exactly that. How did you miss that? Please post constructively.

    - - - Updated - - -

    It's also worth noting that the Commission is probably sick of Trump's shit. Remember what Trump did in 2020? Trump caught COVID, then refused a virtual format when his own poor actions led to that being a requirement. Honestly, I think most of us suspect he refused to be shown on camera, because his mic and/or camera could be cut off if, for example, he made a list of objective lies.

    The Commission should continue as they have done for decades. Anyone who doesn't want the free publicity can show up on FOX, where their poll numbers won't change because FOX viewers were going to vote for them anyhow. Trump and the RNC have proven to be blowhards before on this issue, in 2024 they will probably cave again.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathandira View Post
    You give the general masses way too much credit.
    Well, let's add to that. Maybe NFL fans should decide if it was a legal play or not. Surely the "neutral" refs have more important things to do than see if the players are following the rules or not.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    That's the problem, it is both, and you're defending solving only one of them.
    It sounds like you missed the part where I said the commission should be scrapped and replaced (the members of which are too old and detached from the modern debate, and explaining their bad choices on rules, venues, moderators, formats, topics, etc) and politicians should be term limited to stop these careers of 36 years in the Senate and the ridiculous spectacle of ancient senators trying to quiz Facebook, Google, and Twitter CEOs and failing to understand rudimentary aspects of each platform. You've heard two of my proposals for two problems, but you are very stuck demanding both to have the same solution. This is a very pathetic way to level the charge of hypocrisy.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathandira View Post
    You give the general masses way too much credit.
    It's not an internet-popular viewpoint, but it's mine. Maybe in ten years, watching current events unfold with the benefit of having heard my perspective first, you'll come to agree. Even if individuals themselves cannot grasp all the complexity that lead to their distrust of politicians and their media allies, in order to articulate it, I say the previously stated dynamic works.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  20. #60
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    39,906
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    It sounds like you missed--
    Nope. Your hypocrisy was in full display. Either (a) yours specifically, or as you're now claiming (b) you defending the RNC by saying changes should be made based on their demands, but changes they're not willing to make themselves.

    I, a Democrat, have no such issue. Democrats are not asking for these. You and your friends are.

    It doesn't matter what your proposals are, if they're rooted in hypocrisy they're merely handwaved. Basically, if Bill Belichick is asking for a change in refs' behavior because they're old and out of touch, you either (a) point out that Belichick is 69 and just as bad, or (b) you point out what he's asking for is hypocritical. There is no situation where calling the Commission "decrepit " and "a bunch of 70 and 80 year olds " ends well, unless you also point out the hypocrisy of the RNC making that push being made of decrepit 70 and 80 year olds, and they're the ones asking for change.

    You are either defending the hypocrisy by not calling it out as such, or else embodying it yourself. There is no third option. You ruled out a third option.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •