Page 2 of 3 [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,224
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

13 May 2020, 8:29 pm

Magna wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
She's not preaching biblical morality, though, is she? She's just preaching homophobia. No hypocrisy in dressing sexy for a homophobic fanbase then.

She's also found a way to get rich by feeding her fanbase, so it doesn't matter if she was incoherent, she wasn't there for Oxford students, but for her fans and soon-to-be-fans to see her at a reputable institution on YouTube, giving legitimacy to her incoherrent homophobic nonsense.
most homophobes are biblical fundamentalists.


And?

While the majority are, not all of them are.

I said most,not all, sweeping generalizations never work.

Do you have a comment on the topic,Ann Coulter.


She's an effective troll, but beyond that not particularly interesting. She needs to up her trolling game by getting AC tattooed on her face (and everywhere else, repeatedly) and dyeing her hair rainbow coloured - the public trolling game has been upped and she's falling behind. Hasn't she even seen the other right-wing troll? He's dyed himself orange, like all the time; look at the hate he gets, she might as well retire if she can't keep up.


Since there are two sides to every coin, who are some left wing trolls? Please make my night and tell me there aren't any.

Michael Moore might qualify.


_________________
My WP story


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,180
Location: Right over your left shoulder

13 May 2020, 8:36 pm

MaxE wrote:
Michael Moore might qualify.


Michael Moore certainly counts as an 'opinion reporter' even if documentaries are his preferred medium. He's imperfect and has made mistakes, and also certainly has points that can be ideologically rejected even if they're not wrong or inconsistent with the general positions he takes. Then again, maybe I'm missing the target, since he did take a trolling tactic when he was warning $hillary's failing campaign that she was more vulnerable than she realized. That said, he's an order of magnitude more credible than Coulter.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton over the past decade or two are a better analog for Coulter, although they're not so much 'left' as 'black identity', while they largely embrace progressive positions they don't really get invested in fighting for those issues on a broader level, they have more specific priorities that make pushing those ones heavily not really possible. Since their primary emphasis is on racial issues they can't always get invested in issues if it might harm their credibility on their primary concerns.


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Magna
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jun 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,932

13 May 2020, 8:45 pm

^^ & ^.

Those may qualify. However, people being mislabeled as "trolls" when perhaps they simply have strong viewpoints and ascribe concretely to a certain ideology? Is Seth Myers a "troll" or is he just someone who has strong left wing views? Was William F. Buckley a right wing "troll"?

It seems today it's easy to dismiss someone by labeling them a "troll".

I'm not disagreeing that Ann Coulter is a right wing "troll" if you mean her intent is to be controversial and incendiary to people who she disagrees with. "Trolls can affect and change a person's viewpoint. This affect can be bad, but it can also be good, depending. Challenging someone, arguing and debating with them even to the point of upsetting the other person is as old as the hills. I don't think "trolls" are always without merit.



MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,224
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

13 May 2020, 8:53 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
MaxE wrote:
Michael Moore might qualify.


Michael Moore certainly counts as an 'opinion reporter' even if documentaries are his preferred medium. He's imperfect and has made mistakes, and also certainly has points that can be ideologically rejected even if they're not wrong or inconsistent with the general positions he takes. Then again, maybe I'm missing the target, since he did take a trolling tactic when he was warning $hillary's failing campaign that she was more vulnerable than she realized. That said, he's an order of magnitude more credible than Coulter.

I chose Michael Moore because he's the only person in this category who even I have found to be obnoxious and I have seen some evidence that he tries to infer connections between phenomena that are not necessarily justified, I got this impression from his film "Bowling for Columbine". Please don't ask me for specifics regarding what I just said, it's been too long. As for other candidates I suppose some people who appear on MSNBC e.g. Rachel Maddow might qualify although I think it matters whether you agree with their positions.

funeralxempire wrote:
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton over the past decade or two are a better analog for Coulter, although they're not so much 'left' as 'black identity', while they largely embrace progressive positions they don't really get invested in fighting for those issues on a broader level, they have more specific priorities that make pushing those ones heavily not really possible. Since their primary emphasis is on racial issues they can't always get invested in issues if it might harm their credibility on their primary concerns.

To me it seems normal for black spokesmen for racial causes to state their case aggressively and without apparent concern for how white folks will react. I would never think of them as "trolls".


_________________
My WP story


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,180
Location: Right over your left shoulder

13 May 2020, 9:13 pm

Magna wrote:
^^ & ^.

Those may qualify. However, people being mislabeled as "trolls" when perhaps they simply have strong viewpoints and ascribe concretely to a certain ideology? Is Seth Myers a "troll" or is he just someone who has strong left wing views? Was William F. Buckley a right wing "troll"?

It seems today it's easy to dismiss someone by labeling them a "troll".

I'm not disagreeing that Ann Coulter is a right wing "troll" if you mean her intent is to be controversial and incendiary to people who she disagrees with. "Trolls can affect and change a person's viewpoint. This affect can be bad, but it can also be good, depending. Challenging someone, arguing and debating with them even to the point of upsetting the other person is as old as the hills. I don't think "trolls" are always without merit.


Firstly I've got to concede I only have a superficial familiarity with Buckley's writings but by reputation he's considered a more serious writer than Coulter. I know based on his back and forths with Gore Vidal he certainly could be caustic, but afaik that wasn't his bread and butter.

Coulter, and the comedians and punk rockers I mentioned satirize, mock, lampoon, parody, etc the views they disagree with, often a fair bit more than whatever constructive advice they have to offer. Ironically, of all of my examples, Propagandhi might count as the one that puts the most consistent effort into offering here's realistic steps you can take to do more than just being angry about this stuff. John Oliver is often good for this as well, his show's format seems specifically intended to make that a core component compared to most of the other satirical news shows. Seth Meyers isn't quite in that world, so I can give him a pass for not being as constructive as he could be, further his 'trolling' is generally fair and milder than the others because his show is still more of a traditional late show. I don't consider Moore a troll for the most part because he generally offers potential solutions, or at least elements of potential solutions and he also picks apart faulty logic within people who might largely consider themselves aligned with him.

To be fair, Coulter has done that towards Trump (and is one of the rare people who's largely aligned who can survive offering criticism), but her advice is often to the right of his actions, so it's unlikely to cost her her supporters and it's almost always to demand put the priorities of your base over naysayers and worded to both enrage Trump and those who disagree with his base; basically worded to troll and goad.

I don't use strong viewpoints as my primary identifier, since among things you can troll for ultimately nihilistic positions, whether it's hopelessness, or just that getting invested in issues enough to fight isn't socially acceptable or whatever. More so I try to use construction vs. deconstruction as a key consideration, tearing down, pointing out flaws, etc is valuable, but at some point an alternative needs to be offered. I guess part of the consideration would be, how effective would the person be in a position of power since if they never offer anything beyond this sucks and here's why there comes a point where they don't deserve more attention.

I feel Coulter is an especially strong example of a media troll, basically over most other far-right ones (Milo for awhile was on her level, but only for awhile). Alex Jones might be on her level, depending on how much he believes his verbal excrement. Trump is on her level, roughly but leveraged it far more effectively.

But yeah, Ann Coulter seems to be the spiritual grandmother to Daniel Hernandez, she's that level of troll. :jester:


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,180
Location: Right over your left shoulder

13 May 2020, 9:20 pm

MaxE wrote:
To me it seems normal for black spokesmen for racial causes to state their case aggressively and without apparent concern for how white folks will react. I would never think of them as "trolls".


That's not it and I've defended people far more radical in terms of how they might state their case on such matters. Again, it's more a matter of the arguments I'm familiar with them advancing and the (micro-level, like individual level) causes they sometimes seem to embrace. To be fair, it's possible that they were taken, or that the person they represented overstated things and then felt unable to walk it back, and I understand how concerns of saving face could impact how that might play out, but it does tend to erode one's credibility over time. If it's an honest mistake sometimes one needs to accept that their credibility is still hurt and move over for another advocate to take their place... you know, unless ego is a part of it. Image


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,873
Location: temperate zone

14 May 2020, 9:04 am

MaxE wrote:
Magna wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
She's not preaching biblical morality, though, is she? She's just preaching homophobia. No hypocrisy in dressing sexy for a homophobic fanbase then.

She's also found a way to get rich by feeding her fanbase, so it doesn't matter if she was incoherent, she wasn't there for Oxford students, but for her fans and soon-to-be-fans to see her at a reputable institution on YouTube, giving legitimacy to her incoherrent homophobic nonsense.
most homophobes are biblical fundamentalists.


And?

While the majority are, not all of them are.

I said most,not all, sweeping generalizations never work.

Do you have a comment on the topic,Ann Coulter.


She's an effective troll, but beyond that not particularly interesting. She needs to up her trolling game by getting AC tattooed on her face (and everywhere else, repeatedly) and dyeing her hair rainbow coloured - the public trolling game has been upped and she's falling behind. Hasn't she even seen the other right-wing troll? He's dyed himself orange, like all the time; look at the hate he gets, she might as well retire if she can't keep up.


Since there are two sides to every coin, who are some left wing trolls? Please make my night and tell me there aren't any.

Michael Moore might qualify.


I have always thought of Michael Moore, and Rush Limbaugh, as being comparable.

Neither are high brow intellectual pundits like Gore Vidal, Wiliam F. Buckley, or George Will.

Both are pop culture entertainers. But with a political agenda.

Both are quite entertaining. But both are rather ...honesty-impaired. Though Moore seldom ever flat-out states things as facts that aren't facts the way Limbaugh does, his films do have segments that are highly misleading.



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

14 May 2020, 11:02 am

The Gore Vidal Bill Buckley dynamic is fascinating,those were great debates everyone should watch.

The moment when Vidal called Buckley a cripto Nazi and Buckley called Vidal queer.And Buckley felt so defeated that he had let Vidal get under his skin.


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,659

14 May 2020, 11:25 am

Magna wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
Magna wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
I've read most of her books and enjoy her articles.


Hmm. We've had the range from homophobe to 2nd rate right-wing troll (admittedly, the first rate trolls today are leaders of countries, so 2nd rate troll is still a pretty major troll).
That doesn't shed the best light onto your character ...


Antebellum architecture was created at a time and in a place where slavery was an accepted practice. Slavery was a racist action. Therefore, if anyone likes antebellum architecture, they must be racist.... :roll: :roll: :roll:

Is that faulty logic a formal or an informal fallacy?


Your formal logic is formally correct, but the analogy is bad. Anne Coulter's books aren't antebellum architecture. She's a racist.
Her books propagate racism.

But hey, I have only read about her books, maybe they are some Leni Riefenstahl level of aesthetic achievement worth experiencing despite the content. Weirdly, no one seems to be praising Ann Coulter's prose....


He mentions enjoying her books and her articles. You mention only her books. I've never read any of her books either, but I have read some of her political articles. Nary an article was on the subject of race that I recall. It would be incorrect to insinuate that someone is racist by association if they enjoy reading articles written by someone alleged to be a racist who writes about a wide array of topics.


Yet he said he has read *most* of her books.

But yes, you are right, and I would like to highlight that I was careful not to outright call Magna a racist.
He has plenty of room to explain what I'm missing out on, and if there legitimate reasons to enjoy her books and articles over someone less racist, less trolley and less homophobic, who knows, maybe I might look into them.

Regarding left wing trolls: Zizek does some trolling here and there. But even when he's joking about sending people to the Gulag... Well, he's joking. A troll makes a joke like that and insists on being serious, just so people get outraged.

I guess the Satanic Temple qualifies as liberal trolls.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


Magna
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jun 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,932

14 May 2020, 11:40 am

shlaifu wrote:
Magna wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
Magna wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
I've read most of her books and enjoy her articles.


Hmm. We've had the range from homophobe to 2nd rate right-wing troll (admittedly, the first rate trolls today are leaders of countries, so 2nd rate troll is still a pretty major troll).
That doesn't shed the best light onto your character ...


Antebellum architecture was created at a time and in a place where slavery was an accepted practice. Slavery was a racist action. Therefore, if anyone likes antebellum architecture, they must be racist.... :roll: :roll: :roll:

Is that faulty logic a formal or an informal fallacy?


Your formal logic is formally correct, but the analogy is bad. Anne Coulter's books aren't antebellum architecture. She's a racist.
Her books propagate racism.

But hey, I have only read about her books, maybe they are some Leni Riefenstahl level of aesthetic achievement worth experiencing despite the content. Weirdly, no one seems to be praising Ann Coulter's prose....


He mentions enjoying her books and her articles. You mention only her books. I've never read any of her books either, but I have read some of her political articles. Nary an article was on the subject of race that I recall. It would be incorrect to insinuate that someone is racist by association if they enjoy reading articles written by someone alleged to be a racist who writes about a wide array of topics.


Yet he said he has read *most* of her books.

But yes, you are right, and I would like to highlight that I was careful not to outright call Magna a racist.
He has plenty of room to explain what I'm missing out on, and if there legitimate reasons to enjoy her books and articles over someone less racist, less trolley and less homophobic, who knows, maybe I might look into them.

Regarding left wing trolls: Zizek does some trolling here and there. But even when he's joking about sending people to the Gulag... Well, he's joking. A troll makes a joke like that and insists on being serious, just so people get outraged.

I guess the Satanic Temple qualifies as liberal trolls.


I think you mean you were careful not to call WP member Mr. Reynholm a racist rather than Magna a racist since Mr Reynholm was the one who said he's read her books and articles.



XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

14 May 2020, 11:49 am

She's a harpy I avoid like the plague.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

14 May 2020, 1:31 pm

Closest left-wing analogue to Coulter is probably the Chapo Trap House lot, but I’m not sure they’re really high profile enough to qualify.



BraveMurderDay
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jun 2004
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 251
Location: St. Paul

14 May 2020, 3:22 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Closest left-wing analogue to Coulter is probably the Chapo Trap House lot, but I’m not sure they’re really high profile enough to qualify.


At the moment, Krystal Ball of The Hill seems to be fitting that mold. She's gone scorched earth against Biden and the less radical Dems. If you've ever listened to her talk, she reeks of someone who delights in being a provocateur. The Chapo guys are probably more motivated by convictions or were at one time since they were nobodies who started a podcast from scratch.

Krystal used to be on MSNBC, and I imagine her future will be continuing to act like an anti-establishment populist who treats conservatives with kid gloves unless one or both parties have a significant shakeup.



shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,659

14 May 2020, 3:58 pm

Magna wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
Magna wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
Magna wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
I've read most of her books and enjoy her articles.


Hmm. We've had the range from homophobe to 2nd rate right-wing troll (admittedly, the first rate trolls today are leaders of countries, so 2nd rate troll is still a pretty major troll).
That doesn't shed the best light onto your character ...


Antebellum architecture was created at a time and in a place where slavery was an accepted practice. Slavery was a racist action. Therefore, if anyone likes antebellum architecture, they must be racist.... :roll: :roll: :roll:

Is that faulty logic a formal or an informal fallacy?


Your formal logic is formally correct, but the analogy is bad. Anne Coulter's books aren't antebellum architecture. She's a racist.
Her books propagate racism.

But hey, I have only read about her books, maybe they are some Leni Riefenstahl level of aesthetic achievement worth experiencing despite the content. Weirdly, no one seems to be praising Ann Coulter's prose....


He mentions enjoying her books and her articles. You mention only her books. I've never read any of her books either, but I have read some of her political articles. Nary an article was on the subject of race that I recall. It would be incorrect to insinuate that someone is racist by association if they enjoy reading articles written by someone alleged to be a racist who writes about a wide array of topics.


Yet he said he has read *most* of her books.

But yes, you are right, and I would like to highlight that I was careful not to outright call Magna a racist.
He has plenty of room to explain what I'm missing out on, and if there legitimate reasons to enjoy her books and articles over someone less racist, less trolley and less homophobic, who knows, maybe I might look into them.

Regarding left wing trolls: Zizek does some trolling here and there. But even when he's joking about sending people to the Gulag... Well, he's joking. A troll makes a joke like that and insists on being serious, just so people get outraged.

I guess the Satanic Temple qualifies as liberal trolls.


I think you mean you were careful not to call WP member Mr. Reynholm a racist rather than Magna a racist since Mr Reynholm was the one who said he's read her books and articles.


Yes. I'm sorry for my negligence. You are right, I was speaking to you, Magna, about Mr. Reynholm, and got mixed up with the quotes over the two days of messaging back and forth.
My sincerest apologies for the mixup.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 May 2020, 9:37 pm

She's a heartless banshee who titilates other conservatives by ridiculing political opponents, gays, liberals, Muslims, and any other persons she an her fans don't approve of. And while I'm sure I'll be taken to task for mentioning her physical appearance, but she looks like a skeleton with a human skin stretched over it.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

15 May 2020, 10:59 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
She's a heartless banshee who titilates other conservatives by ridiculing political opponents, gays, liberals, Muslims, and any other persons she an her fans don't approve of. And while I'm sure I'll be taken to task for mentioning her physical appearance, but she looks like a skeleton with a human skin stretched over it.


Don't worry.

My first instinct was to refer to her as a "skull-faced c_nt," so you're not the only one who thinks that.


_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)