Jay wrote:I think you and Mindia could have an interesting and civil discussion but you choose to troll each other so it ends up being a wasteful read (to me).
okay fine realpost
first of all, with maybe a few exceptions ("hey you'd like this game/band/show, check it out") nobody posts here out of concern for whether others will think it's a wasteful read or not - in fact possibly even the opposite - so unless the original intent of a post was specifically aimed at not wasting your time, it's kinda your fault for letting your time get wasted in the first place isn't it?
but more to the point - every once in a blue moon (read: typically after a
expires) mindia will come in and be like "hay guyz i'm nice now" and we do actually have what passes for decent discussion for a brief period
but it never lasts. invariably either a) he will make some wild claim ("OBUMMER IS COMIN FER MAH GUNZ") and become increasingly frustrated with any attempts, no matter how polite and nonconfrontational and well-reasoned, to point out how there is zero evidence of such claim being remotely plausible, or b) someone whose political/moral/ethical viewpoints are rooted in evidence and/or a different set of (non-)faith-based values will sack-tap him right in the self-righteousness scrote. then there's an instant kneejerk reaction, he stops reading posts and starts cherrypicking tangential things to harp on instead, and before you know it it's nothing but cunt this and liberal brainwashing that and other rando dumbass tripe
point being, any interesting and civil discussion of the issues of our time requires all parties involved to understand how interesting and civil discussion of the issues of our time is supposed to work. you offer your views, you back them up with evidence, and you ask others to (re)consider their views based on the strength of your argument. on the flipside, there is also a tacit agreement that YOU will listen to others' views and the evidence they use to back them up, and you agree to (re)consider YOUR views based on the strength of THEIR argument. you need both, because no discussion in which less than 100% of the parties involved are in agreement on this requirement of mutuality can remain civil and interesting (or even on-topic); it's just a simulacrum of a real discussion which can only maintain the illusion of usefulness for so long
so really when you say "haha you got trolled by mindia once again, aren't i a gem for not falling for it" it's actually pretty cynical. each time i engage it's because i want to believe that maybe THIS time he has somehow learned how to consider different viewpoints without taking them as personal attacks or attempts to subvert and ruin what he thinks is good and just about america. his inevitable degradation into bigotry and cheerleading for the worst people/ideas humankind can conjure and the unrepentant namecalling is nothing but one more "not yet, apparently"
or yeah, maybe it is just 100% a game. then again maybe i'm not cynical enough to believe it yet.