Conservative Identity Politics: The Bait and Switch

[PosPosPos]

Ironically, the current tribalism is causing this pile-on directed at you right now. I say this even though I disagree with your blanket statement opposed to cultural traditions.

But I suppose the one currently on the receiving end of tribal rhetoric is the best person to argue that everything will return to ideas instead of identity groups. You can’t be imagined to ignore or downplay current realities in political discourse.

Not surprised a nihilist is attempting to label people in the right criticizing those clearly in the wrong, as tribalism.

You admit that PC2 is wrongminded, but because right and wrong doesn't matter to you, you apply the same value to both sides. How sad, to be devoid of critical thinking, of any and all values, like you.

[tehdang]

Not surprised a nihilist is attempting to label people in the right criticizing those clearly in the wrong, as tribalism.

You admit that PC2 is wrongminded, but because right and wrong doesn't matter to you, you apply the same value to both sides. How sad, to be devoid of critical thinking, of any and all values, like you.

I disagree with his take on ideas, but can clearly see the current pile-on is pure tribalism. He’s from the wrong tribe, thus the slew of posts. I include your post when I say this.

He and I can disagree on relative values on traditionalism and culture and not do the idiotic label-and-dismiss game.

[Elegiac]

He and I can disagree on relative values on traditionalism and culture and not do the idiotic label-and-dismiss game.

Both you and he have never had your right to exist crop up regularly as a debate topic in high school and it shows, lol.

[Edge-]

I disagree with his take on ideas, but can clearly see the current pile-on is pure tribalism.

So...is having an unpopular opinion a lot of folks disagree with like, "tribalism"? And not just like, having an unpopular opinion? Why do y'all always try to frame shit in the context to make people out as victims simply because they have an unpopular opinion?

[Elegiac]

So...is having an unpopular opinion a lot of folks disagree with like, "tribalism"? And not just like, having an unpopular opinion? Why do y'all always try to frame shit in the context to make people out as victims simply because they have an unpopular opinion?

It's the new bad faith argument preferred by internet right wingers.

> Say blatantly outrageous thing.
> Wait for inevitable reaction.
> Claim they are victims of censorship or a harassment campaign.
> Smugly rake in oppression points/donations.

[Endus]

I disagree with his take on ideas, but can clearly see the current pile-on is pure tribalism. He’s from the wrong tribe, thus the slew of posts. I include your post when I say this.

He and I can disagree on relative values on traditionalism and culture and not do the idiotic label-and-dismiss game.

Or maybe it has nothing to do with any kind of "tribal affiliation", and just that some of us take issue with irrational rejection of facts and reason to insist everyone accept imaginary nonsense instead.

It doesn't take "tribalism" for the majority of people to reject that kind of horseshit. Nor is it tribalism to reject its validity, when we can all determine how nonsensical it is based on its own obvious lack of merit.

You think we're communicating with each other, or something? I don't PM people hardly ever, and certainly not over anything like this. I also have no affiliations with the groups most of those users support, in any sense whatsoever.

If we agree, it's because we all see how wrong a thing is independently, and post accordingly. This stuff isn't subjective tribalist groupthink, it's mutual independent corroboration.

You know, the underpinning of the entire scientific method as a tool of inquiry.

Also, on the "you're just labelling people" bullshit; if someone expresses views that are racist, they are a racist. That isn't a "label" being slapped on willy-nilly, it's a recognition of a thing for what it is, like being able to look at a stop sign and say "That sign is red". "Red" is not a "label" any more than "racist" is. It's just a descriptor that clearly applies.

[PC2]

I say this even though I disagree with your blanket statement opposed to cultural traditions.

I said "most" but not "all" traditions because most of them are non-universal and are only appropriate for a certain time or place. Trivial/symbolic traditions don't matter so I'm just talking about the ones that have a functional impact in the world or relate to human values or belief in the supernatural. Humanity only needs the traditions that we can't survive without and the ones that are true. Like teaching each generation that murdering other people in order to take their stuff is wrong.

[tehdang]

I said "most" but not "all" traditions because most of them are non-universal and are only appropriate for a certain time or place. Trivial/symbolic traditions don't matter so I'm just talking about the ones that have a functional impact in the world or relate to human values or belief in the supernatural. Humanity only needs the traditions that we can't survive without and the ones that are true. Like teaching each generation that murdering other people in order to take their stuff is wrong.

I know, I was using blanket statement in the sense that “most traditions are” is a blanket statement made regarding all traditions in all religious, cultural, institutional, ethnic, national, regional senses. I have no strong feelings (I would make no blanket statement saying most or half or whatever) about all traditions, just some subsets of religious traditions perhaps.

- - - Updated - - -

Both you and he have never had your right to exist crop up regularly as a debate topic in high school and it shows, lol.

I don’t suppose he has the balls or bad taste to accuse others of basing their beliefs solely on personal comfort. It’s the nuclear bomb of disingenuous takes.

- - - Updated - - -

So...is having an unpopular opinion a lot of folks disagree with like, "tribalism"? And not just like, having an unpopular opinion? Why do y'all always try to frame shit in the context to make people out as victims simply because they have an unpopular opinion?

If his opinion was debated on those grounds, and not him being a bad person, like nobody that voted trump or holds an unpopular opinion can be allowed to hold that opinion in good faith, then I’d agree with you.

[Shadowferal]

I disagree with his take on ideas, but can clearly see the current pile-on is pure tribalism. He’s from the wrong tribe, thus the slew of posts. I include your post when I say this.

I find it easy to disagree with this.

Those who I'm in agreement on this "here and now," I've had plenty of disagreements in the recent past, at times, vehemently so. The problem with Primary is his utter lack of substance, and obvious...dubious doubtful ethic/morality.

[tehdang]

Or maybe it has nothing to do with any kind of "tribal affiliation", and just that some of us take issue with irrational rejection of facts and reason to insist everyone accept imaginary nonsense instead.

It doesn't take "tribalism" for the majority of people to reject that kind of horseshit. Nor is it tribalism to reject its validity, when we can all determine how nonsensical it is based on its own obvious lack of merit.

You think we're communicating with each other, or something? I don't PM people hardly ever, and certainly not over anything like this. I also have no affiliations with the groups most of those users support, in any sense whatsoever.

If we agree, it's because we all see how wrong a thing is independently, and post accordingly. This stuff isn't subjective tribalist groupthink, it's mutual independent corroboration.

You know, the underpinning of the entire scientific method as a tool of inquiry.

Also, on the "you're just labelling people" bullshit; if someone expresses views that are racist, they are a racist. That isn't a "label" being slapped on willy-nilly, it's a recognition of a thing for what it is, like being able to look at a stop sign and say "That sign is red". "Red" is not a "label" any more than "racist" is. It's just a descriptor that clearly applies.

Hopefully with time and distance from the Trump administration, people will learn to discuss what’s imaginary or counter to facts, instead of viewing opinions in light of binary choices in voting or coming from (frankly ad-hominem) places of privilege. I am deeply opposed to outright rejection of argument on grounds of race, privilege, party identification, or vote. “That’s your privilege speaking” and variations thereof (you can’t be believed to honestly argue this point because who you voted for last November) is a subversion of discourse, and actually a rather blatant example. It might be true that someone’s upbringing or race led them to whatever worldview, but arguing that point anonymously on the internet is the stupidest means of engagement imaginable.

[Endus]

Hopefully with time and distance from the Trump administration

Flag on the play, foul.

I'm not American. The Trump administration has fuck-all to do with anything I say, unless I specifically speaking about the Trump administration.

I am deeply opposed to outright rejection of argument on grounds of race, privilege, party identification, or vote. “That’s your privilege speaking” and variations thereof (you can’t be believed to honestly argue this point because who you voted for last November) is a subversion of discourse, and actually a rather blatant example.

Also complete bullshit.

Nobody rejects arguments based on race or privilege. Not in any significant number, anyway.

They reject claims of understanding when people clearly do not have lived experience that would allow them to understand someone's perspective. "You're dismissing my lived experience because of your personal privilege" is not an "outright rejection", it's pointing to the specific lack of understanding that is leading someone to misrepresent or fail to understand the point.

As for "party identification" and "vote", those clearly demonstrate your specific views and the ideology you support, and you can and will be judged accordingly for doing so. That's not "tribalism", that's an individual assessment of your personal conduct and statements.

[tehdang]

I find it easy to disagree with this.

Those who I'm in agreement on this "here and now," I've had plenty of disagreements in the recent past, at times, vehemently so. The problem with Primary is his utter lack of substance, and obvious...dubious doubtful ethic/morality.

I recommend ignoring posts of people that you genuinely feel only their “history” proves aren’t worth engaging (trust me, I do the same with some race-bashers or), to prove the history isn’t a convenient excuse to avoid using effort to make a germane point on the topic.

After all, the history of someone committing some sort of debating subterfuge becomes their future even if somebody wasn’t aware of it in current day.

“I refuse to debate in good faith with this trans-phobe bigot homophobe religious zealot bad-faith-arguer whatever” is more a personal statement of belief than any objective means of consideration, even if you can get a Salem-sized forum population to join you in not debating with witches.

[Endus]

“I refuse to debate in good faith with this trans-phobe bigot homophobe religious zealot bad-faith-arguer whatever” is more a personal statement of belief than any objective means of consideration, even if you can get a Salem-sized forum population to join you in not debating with witches.

"It's so unfair that people correctly identify the harmful and abusive views that I clearly express publicly for everyone to see, they're clearly the villains for noticing how awful a person I am, rather than me for being that awful in the first place."

This isn't an argument. You're just carrying water for bigots and abusers. If you've got more of a problem with people calling out racism that you do with the racism itself, you're part of the problem and a supporter/defender of racism.

[unfilteredJW]

Playing the victim is so fucking intellectually lazy.

[tehdang]

Flag on the play, foul.

I'm not American. The Trump administration has fuck-all to do with anything I say, unless I specifically speaking about the Trump administration.

I wasn’t aware that the impact of Trump on the world was so minor that it didn’t effect the discourse in other countries.

Also complete bullshit.

Nobody rejects arguments based on race or privilege. Not in any significant number, anyway.

They reject claims of understanding when people clearly do not have lived experience that would allow them to understand someone's perspective. "You're dismissing my lived experience because of your personal privilege" is not an "outright rejection", it's pointing to the specific lack of understanding that is leading someone to misrepresent or fail to understand the point.

As for "party identification" and "vote", those clearly demonstrate your specific views and the ideology you support, and you can and will be judged accordingly for doing so. That's not "tribalism", that's an individual assessment of your personal conduct and statements.

Maybe you need to reread privileges associated with “right to exist,” in the sense that he’s privileged to not have had anyone questioning his right to exist. PM me if it’ll take a while to reread the first two pages, because I may miss a future post when you refresh yourself on the means of rejection actually used by people and not “nobody rejects arguments based on ...”

Because, frankly, it’s pure bullshit if you’re using that about somebody’s opinion when they’re not advocating for ideas solely referencing their own lives experience. Again, PM me with links where somebody like PC2 makes explicit reference to his history growing up as a young black man in Chicago, or other argument from personal original research.

I have my own cognitive biases, as you, and as with every other member of the forum. One particular case is using accusations of insufficient lived experience to kneecap productive discussions on a topic. EG You can’t be able to hold an informed opinion on a subject because you’re the wrong race, sex, BMI, LGBTQQ2I+, class, immigrant status, attractiveness, or two-parent household. Pay attention here: that is only informative and not-logical-fallacy if the speaker is alleging he knows what it feels like to be a member of the discussed group. If it’s anything on public policy, foreign policy, or a host of other issues, then you better practice arguing the point instead of accusing the opponent of lacking understanding in levels of identity characteristics. It doesn’t follow that because certain groups experience more firsthand knowledge of certain situations, and therefore members of other groups cannot argue logically and rationally on a subject based on informing themselves apart from subjective experience. That’s poppycock.

And please reread the thread about what baseless grounds were cited for rejection of bland posts; vote was mentioned. It’s the dilemma for the poster to make the connection to party and candidate; not some default assumption—see prior argument on insufficient grounds for dismissal of a poster’s post based on other attributes.

[Endus]

I wasn’t aware that the impact of Trump on the world was so minor that it didn’t effect the discourse in other countries.

Then you really overestimate American influence outside your borders, frankly.

Maybe you need to reread privileges associated with “right to exist,” in the sense that he’s privileged to not have had anyone questioning his right to exist.

You're confusing a "right to exist" with a "right to be free from criticism for expressing abusive views towards others".

Nobody's arguing against any "right to exist". But you do not have any supposed "right" to live your life free from people expressing their opinions about you, to you. If you can't handle people condemning you for your public statements, your "rights" entitle you to keep your mouth shut and not express yourself publicly, and that's as far as they go. The moment you do so express yourself, public backlash for what you've said is not a breach of your rights and freedoms in any way whatsoever. You get to suck it up and cope with everyone else having rights, too.

PM me if it’ll take a while to reread the first two pages, because I may miss a future post when you refresh yourself on the means of rejection actually used by people and not “nobody rejects arguments based on ...”

Went back over the first two pages. Really doesn't take long. Nobody's making the statements you claim. You're making that up.

I have my own cognitive biases, as you, and as with every other member of the forum. One particular case is using accusations of insufficient lived experience to kneecap productive discussions on a topic. EG You can’t be able to hold an informed opinion on a subject because you’re the wrong race, sex, BMI, LGBTQQ2I+, class, immigrant status, attractiveness, or two-parent household. Pay attention here: that is only informative and not-logical-fallacy if the speaker is alleging he knows what it feels like to be a member of the discussed group. If it’s anything on public policy, foreign policy, or a host of other issues, then you better practice arguing the point instead of accusing the opponent of lacking understanding in levels of identity characteristics. It doesn’t follow that because certain groups experience more firsthand knowledge of certain situations, and therefore members of other groups cannot argue logically and rationally on a subject based on informing themselves apart from subjective experience. That’s poppycock.

No, that's basic comprehension of reality.

If you lack the understanding and knowledge of what someone else is experiencing, and claim to know better than they do what they need despite that, you're not the one taking a rational, logical stance on anything. You're dismissing evidence and arguments wholesale, because you personally haven't experienced them. It doesn't mean it's impossible to understand without lived experience, as compassion and empathy exist, but you can't have compassion and empathy and dismiss someone else's lived experience.

I'll speak out, as a cisgender straight dude, about my support for LGBT folks and what they're going through. What I would never do is claim that I really understand what it's like to go through growing up that way. I could point to some grounds for empathy over bullying, as I was bullied myself, but I never had to deal with body dysmorphia or bigotry against who I am. And so, I'm not going to try and replace their voices on those subjects. Instead, I'll listen, and hear what they have to say, and try and do my best to understand from there.

But my experience can only ever be at best secondhand. And a pretty fundamental baseline for any academic research is that firsthand accounts are always better than secondhand. You want to get your information from as close to the original source as feasible.

And please reread the thread about what baseless grounds were cited for rejection of bland posts; vote was mentioned. It’s the dilemma for the poster to make the connection to party and candidate; not some default assumption—see prior argument on insufficient grounds for dismissal of a poster’s post based on other attributes.

Again, dismissing someone's perspective because of their vote is not "tribalism", it's based on that individual's expressed ideological support for certain positions and views, as expressed by that vote.

This is basic stuff.

[Elegiac]

One particular case is using accusations of insufficient lived experience to kneecap productive discussions on a topic.

That's the thing though: "Should X group of people be allowed to exist" is not a productive discussion.

The ignorance of not having the lived experience of having your demographic's existence up for debate in the cultural mainstream is simply the most charitable explanation for thinking otherwise. If y'all would prefer to identify yourselves as blatantly bigoted instead, by all means.

[tehdang]

Then you really overestimate American influence outside your borders, frankly.

Well, I was hoping this was a temporary suspension of normal foundations for debate, but if it isn't a recent change, I am sad indeed

You're confusing a "right to exist" with a "right to be free from criticism for expressing abusive views towards others".

Nobody's arguing against any "right to exist". But you do not have any supposed "right" to live your life free from people expressing their opinions about you, to you. If you can't handle people condemning you for your public statements, your "rights" entitle you to keep your mouth shut and not express yourself publicly, and that's as far as they go. The moment you do so express yourself, public backlash for what you've said is not a breach of your rights and freedoms in any way whatsoever. You get to suck it up and cope with everyone else having rights, too.


Went back over the first two pages. Really doesn't take long. Nobody's making the statements you claim. You're making that up.



No, that's basic comprehension of reality.

If you lack the understanding and knowledge of what someone else is experiencing, and claim to know better than they do what they need despite that, you're not the one taking a rational, logical stance on anything. You're dismissing evidence and arguments wholesale, because you personally haven't experienced them. It doesn't mean it's impossible to understand without lived experience, as compassion and empathy exist, but you can't have compassion and empathy and dismiss someone else's lived experience.

I'll speak out, as a cisgender straight dude, about my support for LGBT folks and what they're going through. What I would never do is claim that I really understand what it's like to go through growing up that way. I could point to some grounds for empathy over bullying, as I was bullied myself, but I never had to deal with body dysmorphia or bigotry against who I am. And so, I'm not going to try and replace their voices on those subjects. Instead, I'll listen, and hear what they have to say, and try and do my best to understand from there.

But my experience can only ever be at best secondhand. And a pretty fundamental baseline for any academic research is that firsthand accounts are always better than secondhand. You want to get your information from as close to the original source as feasible.



Again, dismissing someone's perspective because of their vote is not "tribalism", it's based on that individual's expressed ideological support for certain positions and views, as expressed by that vote.

This is basic stuff.

I already went over my basic stuff. If the argument doesn't draw on firsthand observations of posters, don't retreat into stupid identity plays based on inherent characteristics. You're really missing "basic comprehension of reality." I wouldn't quite go as far as you would, so maybe I'd call it "basic assumptions of good faith to engage in a Democracy without letting your cognitive biases handicap your means of comprehension." Included in that is a whitewashing of the means of argument engaged in here with simple aversion to experiencing criticism. The presence of idiotic, unfounded criticism is not prima facie proof that all criticism is unwarranted. Try to do better.

The subjective experience of what "someone else is experiencing" should be told when it arises from knowledge that is inaccessible to all beyond that identity group. The post in question didn't fault any "right to exist" or rely on experiences totally unknown to the author. This all despite multiple posters making assumptions on identity, and accusations of bad faith, in total discredit (disservice?) to their responses (seriously, try harder if you deign to respond at all). The hill you're dying on relies on very little privilege of "special knowledge" inaccessible to others. I recommend you make the case from the ground up if you wish to sideline the argument. I don't countenance assumptions of incapability and special knowledge that aren't bearing that load in argumentation. Neither should anyone else here.

It is a very pretty thing to dismiss others as lacking understanding and knowledge. Show it and prove it. The rest is intellectual laziness. Why address the topic, when it's quicker and easier to dismiss the author's capacity to make the argument? I'd sooner accuse you of being so alien to the American experience as to possess no useful knowledge on any topic in my country. Your own interaction here presumes you violate your own arguments, or are capable of playing the hypocrite on these topics when it suits you. I do not know which. I do know that you did not draw on experiences as a "cisgender straight dude" to make arguments on a LGBT cultural/societal issue. Strangely, and quite strangely given how you argue here, you haven't established a basis that PC2 did commit a "foul" (borrowing a term you used) by drawing on experiential knowledge he was not in possession of on a topic where it mattered. I consider that a heavy lift, comparable to the gnostics that told others they were in possession of secret knowledge the others couldn't know for themselves. If you wish to end as some kind of dismissal of argument, please be so honest as to spend some time contending that personal, felt experience is absolutely necessary in that case. All I'm hearing is that the defense of identity-based special knowledge is applicable in a great variety of situations, unexpanded upon and simply asserted, and you do not deign to impart that to the reader. You may well know that firsthand sources may be biased in a great number of ways, comparable to asking only one commander about how the war was waged. Decades later and considerable sources consulted, the historians debate on the finer points, without being so droll as to assert nobody could really know what happened that was not directly engaged in the fighting.

I speak on tribalism considering the form of the dismissal. One naked characterization of ideas that "harm people" ending in "bad faith actor." A White Man's Burden, rofl. Dismissal of simple minded beliefs. "Yet you voted for Trump" = disingenuous (don't fucking try to argue somebody didn't bring voting preference into a topical discussion). One naked accusation that his policies are "based entirely on what services your personal comfort." To paraphrase Biden, "cmon man," you're trying to discard what happened in a mere 3 pages of thread because it doesn't suit your argument. Either reckon with the comments or surrender the point. I am equally capable of looking at your history of applying judgement to actual posts, and deciding you're either too biased or ignorant to accurately argue in light of them.

[Felya]

Ironically, the current tribalism is causing this pile-on directed at you right now.

This is a disingenuous argument... having an unpopular opinion, does not define tribalism. This is an argument used by every conspiracy theorist. Personally, I relentlessly respond to even people who have me on ignore. Because, every single member of the pile, is like handing me a soap box. If I understand the point I am making, the more scrutiny it sees, the better I look defeating every single one.

Think about the difference between what you call piling on... and someone holding a sign... “prove me wrong”...

[Endus]

I already went over my basic stuff. If the argument doesn't draw on firsthand observations of posters, don't retreat into stupid identity plays based on inherent characteristics.

They aren't "identity plays", they're observations of conduct and opinion.

The subjective experience of what "someone else is experiencing" should be told when it arises from knowledge that is inaccessible to all beyond that identity group.

You mean like the lived experience of being part of that identity group?

Did you seriously not see how you were arguing against your own conclusion, here?

It is a very pretty thing to dismiss others as lacking understanding and knowledge. Show it and prove it.

Shifting the burden of proof isn't really a defensible position.

If they want to demonstrate that they have such understanding and knowledge, it's on them to demonstrate that. What you're complaining about is when we indicate that the burden of proof is against them and thus there's no reason to take their rhetoric as an argument, since it isn't based on anything. Particularly as we can demonstrate that it clearly ignores evidence that's clearly available to all. As we have one position based on evidence and reason, and their position which is not, they get no credence and the particular bad faith they're engaging in is identified.

The rest is intellectual laziness. Why address the topic, when it's quicker and easier to dismiss the author's capacity to make the argument?

Pointing out someone is racist (for example) is addressing the topic of their arguments. It is attacking their arguments, and identifying why they do not follow.

Your own interaction here presumes you violate your own arguments, or are capable of playing the hypocrite on these topics when it suits you. I do not know which.

Where am I claiming to know what it's like to grow up and live as an American, again?

Strangely, and quite strangely given how you argue here, you haven't established a basis that PC2 did commit a "foul" (borrowing a term you used) by drawing on experiential knowledge he was not in possession of on a topic where it mattered. I consider that a heavy lift, comparable to the gnostics that told others they were in possession of secret knowledge the others couldn't know for themselves.

I mean, it's clear you aren't citing a specific post of mine, here, because there isn't a post that this actually fits.

The first post of his I criticized, I provided a source to back my position in my second response.
The second, I was pointing to internal contradictions and calls for cultural genocide, the latter of which is just a clearly defined term and I didn't feel a need to source that definition.

Those were the only two sub-threads where I responded to something PC2 said here. I clearly established the "foul" in both cases. So what the heck are you going off about, here?

If you wish to end as some kind of dismissal of argument, please be so honest as to spend some time contending that personal, felt experience is absolutely necessary in that case. All I'm hearing is that the defense of identity-based special knowledge is applicable in a great variety of situations, unexpanded upon and simply asserted, and you do not deign to impart that to the reader. You may well know that firsthand sources may be biased in a great number of ways, comparable to asking only one commander about how the war was waged. Decades later and considerable sources consulted, the historians debate on the finer points, without being so droll as to assert nobody could really know what happened that was not directly engaged in the fighting.

This is just a non-sequitur. I never suggested you should not seek out multiple sources. And speaking as someone with a history degree, those historians debating those "finer points" are doing so by citing primary source material for those points, pretty much without exception. If you don't have new information from primary source analysis, it's likely you don't have anything new to contribute to academic discussion in the first place.

I speak on tribalism considering the form of the dismissal. One naked characterization of ideas that "harm people" ending in "bad faith actor." A White Man's Burden, rofl. Dismissal of simple minded beliefs. "Yet you voted for Trump" = disingenuous (don't fucking try to argue somebody didn't bring voting preference into a topical discussion). One naked accusation that his policies are "based entirely on what services your personal comfort." To paraphrase Biden, "cmon man," you're trying to discard what happened in a mere 3 pages of thread because it doesn't suit your argument. Either reckon with the comments or surrender the point. I am equally capable of looking at your history of applying judgement to actual posts, and deciding you're either too biased or ignorant to accurately argue in light of them.

I am pointing out that you are mischaracterizing the responses. Somewhat outrageously, even.

Proposing harmful ideas does mean that the one proposing them is not participating in good faith.

The "yet you voted for Trump" was directed at a poster who was making a claim that they solely vote based on policy strength; the clear point there is that Trump had no policy positions whatsoever in his campaign, not even a platform he represented. He also suggested a need to look at the best policies for all, where Trump explicitly targeted various groups for unwarranted political pressure and harm. The point was the inconsistency between what that poster claimed to support, and their actual political choices, also expressed by that same poster; the two are in conflict and demonstrate hypocrisy. It did not argue that voting for Trump was what made them disingenuous, it was the conflict between their post and that fact.

Same goes for the "personal comfort" position. Same pointing out of the user's hypocrisy.

It also bears pointing out that user history doesn't vanish between threads. Everyone's post history is right there and relevant to any future posting. If you think it's just about these three (now four) pages of this one thread, you aren't actually dealing with the forum system or the fact that we have actual memories and stuff and can remember other statements people made in other threads.

You're making shit up and misrepresenting posts to push an indefensible claim of "tribalism". Weirdly, against disparate users who don't make up any kind of "tribe" in the first place. I've certainly disagreed with both those posters, pretty heavily at times.